we 
if 


Maney ae 


18 CM Ae 


ee ae 
“a lies 


‘ 
Cane 
EE Me 

MN Cee a leer. asia 

Pc hemes 


‘ J 


. 


See. 


Fi acs 
WM Abe ee] 
wld 


=. 


ee 


4 
tna 
i 


nin 


foa8 


ii 
ted a a 
A ‘ . RH AL 
és ESS MA tis Nabashal 

BE beige : 4 
NLD Ao fi 

\ i 


wet ; 
A om ‘ 


a eBay 
BWR Rs teres 
1s 


Seti 


Wavirts 





inna ant 
od PRI 






aa @ 
“EoLocicat sew” 


BS 
4-80 
W277 

copy 5 


e\ 


ri 





. Le 
am a)' { 


at 


» 


o] ye ” i 


i? Me a’? 
we Cee 
a) A sry 
; i eo : #, oF a ; 


} 


J 
i 
U 


i 
aioe 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/revelationinspirOOwart 


/. 
j “ow 


REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


BY / 
V 
BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD 


Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology 
an the Theological Seminary of Princeton 
New Jersey, 1887-1921 


NEW YORK 
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
AMERICAN BRANCH: 35 West 32npD STREET 
LONDON, TORONTO, MELBOURNE & BOMBAY 


ERE PIO 


COPYRIGHT, 1927, 
By Oxrorp UNIVERSITY PREss 
AMERICAN BRANCH 


Copy S. 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

















aep ze) Sine} ine) oS taeh tae 


ERRATA 


. 19, lines 27-28, read (7 ox, n?’'um Yahweh). 
. 127, note 19, read omgen. 

. 184, line 8, read év. 

. 201, note 51, read és. 

. 369, line 1, read rotrwr. 


. 379, line 34, read 45:7. 





ee 








er a) 4 


PREFATORY NOTE 


Rev. BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD, D.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theological 
Seminary of the Presbyterian Church at Princeton, New 
Jersey, provided in his will for the collection and publication 
of the numerous articles on theological subjects contained in 
encyclopaedias, reviews and other periodicals, and appointed a 
committee to edit and publish these papers. In pursuance of 
his instructions, this, the first volume containing his articles on 
Revelation and Inspiration, has been prepared under the edi- 
torial direction of this committee. 

The contents of the succeeding volumes will be as follows: 
the articles on certain great Biblical doctrines, the critical ar- 
ticles on the Person of Christ, those on historical theology, on 
Perfectionism, articles on miscellaneous theological subjects, 
and the more important book reviews. 

It is proposed to publish these volumes in as rapid succes- 
sion as possible. 

The generous permission to publish articles contained in 
this volume is gratefully acknowledged as follows: The 
Howard-Severance Co. for the articles taken from the Inter- 
national Standard Encyclopaedia, and D. Appleton & Co. for 
an article taken from the Universal Cyclopedia and Atlas. 

The clerical preparation of this volume has been done by 
Miss Letitia N. Gosman, to whom the thanks of the committee 
are hereby expressed. 

ETHELBERT D. WARFIELD 

WILLIAM ParK ARMSTRONG 

Caspar Wistar Hopcer 
Committee. 


ill 





BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF 
BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD 


BENJAMIN BRECKINRIDGE WARFIELD was born at “ Gras- 
mere ” near Lexington, Kentucky, November 5, 1851. 

His father, William Warfield, descended in the paternal 
line from a body of south of England puritans who were ex- 
pelled from Virginia by Governor Berkeley when they refused 
to accept his proclamation of Charles II as king. They were 
given a refuge by the Roman Catholic colony of Maryland and 
settled at Annapolis and South River. On the maternal line he 
was descended from Scotch-Irish families who first settled in 
the Cumberland Valley in Pennsylvania. 

His mother, Mary Cabell Breckinridge, was the daughter 
of Rev. Robert Jefferson Breckinridge, D.D., LL.D., distin- 
guished as a preacher, Moderator of the General Assembly of 
the Presbyterian Church, president of Jefferson College, Penn- 
sylvania, founder and president of the Theological Seminary 
at Danville, Kentucky, editor of the Spirit of the Nineteenth 
Century and the Danville (Kentucky) Review, ardent advo- 
cate of the emancipation of the slaves and of the maintenance 
of the Union, temporary chairman of the Republican Conven- 
tion of 1864 which renominated Abraham Lincoln, and author 
of a system of theology entitled ‘“ The Knowledge of God Ob- 
jectively and Subjectively Considered.” Her mother, Sophon- 
isba Preston, daughter of General Francis Preston of Virginia, 
belonged to one of the most vital stocks of the great Ulster 
immigration which settled the up-country of Virginia. To all 
of these people the political, educational and religious prob- 
lems of the new country were of tremendous significance and 
the subject of fervid discussion and at times heated con- 
troversy. 

Benjamin Warfield attended private schools in Lexington; 
and received his preparation chiefly from Lewis Barbour, after- 


Vv 


vil BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 


wards professor of mathematics in Central University, and 
James K. Patterson, afterwards president of the State College 
of Kentucky. He entered the sophomore class of the College of 
New Jersey at Princeton in the autumn of 1868 and graduated 
with the highest honors of his class in 1871, when only nine- 
teen years of age. He won the Thompson prize for the highest 
rank in the junior year, and prizes for essay and debate in the 
American Whig Society, and was one of the editors of the 
Nassau Literary Magazine. 

His early tastes were strongly scientific. He collected birds’ 
egos, butterflies and moths, and geological specimens; studied 
the fauna and flora of his neighborhood; read Darwin’s newly 
published books with enthusiasm; and counted Audubon’s 
works on American birds and mammals his chief treasure. He 
was so certain that he was to follow a scientific career that he 
strenuously objected to studying Greek. But youthful objec- 
tions had little effect in a household where the shorter cate- 
chism was ordinarily completed in the sixth year, followed at 
once by the proofs from the Scriptures, and then by the larger 
catechism, with an appropriate amount of Scripture memo- 
rized in regular course each Sabbath afternoon. 

His special interests in college were mathematics and phys- 
ics, in which he obtained perfect marks. He intended to seek 
the fellowship in experimental science, but was dissuaded by 
his father on the plea that he did not need the stipend in order 
to pursue graduate studies and it would be better for him to 
spend some time in Europe without being bound to any par- 
ticular course of study. 

His departure was delayed by family illness and he did not 
sail until February, 1872. After spending some time in Edin- 
burgh he went to Heidelberg, and writing from there in mid- 
summer he announced his decision to enter the Christian min- 
istry. He had early made a profession of faith and united with 
the Second Presbyterian Church in Lexington, but no serious 
purpose of studying theology had ever been expressed by him. 
The atmosphere of his home was one of vital piety, and his 
mother constantly spoke of her hope that her sons might be- 


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Vil 


come preachers of the Gospel, but with the inheritance of the 
intellectual gifts of his mother’s family he combined the reti- 
cence with regard to personal matters which was characteristic 
of his father. His decision was, therefore, a surprise to his fam- 
ily and most intimate friends. 

In September, 1873, he entered the Theological Seminary 
of the Presbyterian Church at Princeton, and was graduated 
in May, 1876. He was licensed to preach by the Presbytery of 
Ebenezer (Kentucky) in 1875, was stated supply and received 
a call to the pastorate of the First Presbyterian Church of Day- 
ton, Ohio, in the summer of 1876. But he decided to go abroad 
for further study. On August 8rd he was married to Miss Annie 
Pearce Kinkead, and soon after sailed for Europe, studying 
the following winter at Leipsic. 

In the course of the year he was offered an appointment in 
the Old Testament Department at the Western Theological 
Seminary, but his mind, despite his early reluctance to the 
study of Greek, had already turned to the New Testament 
field. Returning in the late summer, he was for a time assistant 
pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Baltimore. Accept- 
ing a call to become instructor in New Testament Language 
and Literature at the Western Theological Seminary, Alle- 
gheny, Pennsylvania, he entered upon his duties in September, 
1878. The following year he was appointed professor and was 
ordained. He had already attracted attention by the first of his 
scholarly publications and in 1880 the degree of Doctor of Di- 
vinity was conferred upon him by the College of New Jersey. 

The nine years he spent at the Western Theological Semi- 
nary were busy years of teaching and study and productive 
scholarship. In them he won a reputation as a teacher and exe- 
gete rarely attained by so young a man. When upon the death 
of Dr. Archibald Alexander Hodge in the autumn of 1886 he 
was called to succeed him in the historic Chair of Theology at 
Princeton many of his friends questioned the wisdom of a 
change. But recalling that Dr. Charles Hodge had been first a 
New Testament student and always a prince of exegetes, he 
determined to accept the call. 


vill BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 


The years spent at Allegheny, useful and fruitful as they 
were, were years of training and preparation for the more than 
thirty-three years (1887—February, 1921) spent in the profes- 
sorship at Princeton. Always deeply attached to the place, lov- 
ing with an enthusiastic devotion the University and the 
Seminary, which he counted in very truth his almae matres, he 
venerated as only a pure and unselfish spirit can the great men 
and the hallowed memories which have made Princeton one of 
the notable seats of theological scholarship. His reverence for 
those who had taught him was equalled by his admiration of 
his colleagues, and the love which he delighted to express for 
those who had taught him was constantly reproduced in his 
affection for his younger colleagues and the successive classes 
of students who thronged his classrooms. 

It may be that a certain intellectual austerity, a loftiness 
and aloofness from the common weaknesses of the human rea- 
son, are inseparable from the system of thought which is asso- 
ciated with the names of Calvin and Augustine and Paul, but 
it is never really incarnated in a great thinker without its in- 
evitable counterpoise of the tenderest human sympathies. In 
Benjamin Warfield such sympathies found expression in a love 
for men, and especially of children, in a heart open to every ap- 
peal, and a strong, if undemonstrative, support of such causes 
as home and foreign missions and especially of the work for 
the freedmen. Always a diligent student, he also read widely 
over an unusual range of general literature, including poetry, 
fiction and drama, and often drew illustrations from the most 
unexpected sources. 

He appreciated in a very high degree the value of an organ 
for the discussion of the theological questions of his time. In 
1889 he became one of the editors of the Presbyterian Review 
in succession to Dr. Francis L. Patton. When that review was 
discontinued he planned and for twelve years conducted the 
Presbyterian and Reformed Review, which in 1902 was taken 
over by the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary and 
renamed the Princeton Theological Review. 

In these reviews was published a large part of the material 


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 1x 


gathered into this and succeeding volumes. Other portions are 
taken from various encyclopaedias and dictionaries, reviews, 
magazines and other publications to which he was a frequent 
contributor. He also published the following volumes: “ Intro- 
duction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament ” 
(1886) ; “ On the Revision of the Confession of Faith ” (1890) ; 
“The Gospel of the Incarnation ” (1893) ; “ Two Studies in the 
History of Doctrine ” (1893) ; ‘ The Right of Systematic The- 
ology ” (1897); ‘ The Significance of the Westminster Stand- 
ards”’ (1898); ‘“‘ Acts and Pastoral Epistles” (1902); ‘ The 
Power of God Unto Salvation ” (1903) ; ‘The Lord of Glory ” 
(1907); “Calvin as a Theologian and Calvinism Today ” 
(1909); ““ Hymns and Religious Verses” (1910); ‘‘ The Sav- 
iour of the World ” (1914); “ The Plan of Salvation ” (1915) ; 
“Faith and Life” (1916) ; “ Counterfeit Miracles ” (1918). 

He received from the College of New Jersey the degree of 
Doctor of Divinity in 1880; that of Doctor of Laws in 1892; 
and that of Doctor of Laws from Davidson College in 1892; 
that of Doctor of Letters from Lafayette College in 1911; and 
that of Sacrae Theologiae Doctor from the University of 
Utrecht in 1918. 

He was stricken with angina pectoris on December 24, 1920, 
and died on February 16, 1921, at Princeton. 

E. D. W. 

















7 

Me x 
_ 

an st) 


ea ae ot iv Foe 


a4 a ‘ e . - pal “ Gas, ic 
- jis vee; i , , fi a mii ht aati asia ee bi 
j a) ' ‘ Uva 7A 4) a) f ie i nie, ey ual re 


Py ‘oly ; AS \ ye i ¥ 7 ¥ 
i . : Mai :. vy 7 By Fe ag } ay ve t ake eh 4 4: 
‘ ,) M A ms : 


¢ ‘ wa ' , 
¢ ‘ ' ; U } ” th ey 7 ha 4 .} mh Nia ru rt We ma, 
: ai aim) ‘ r : [ A ‘ f net if f 
5 : Ft } 44 atu a wre \ ‘ +s a ae Ri I eh jk eo iyo) ais 
ae pl : cyt be 7 “tl vie ee Hy Ys sini es! e 
7 us ve he: ; eA: WM f Baerni iy at ae yt 


} " } 
yey , aie e ve vs, : ae , ida Sabie sy i ie i 
oe ; ane ei vs 1am ‘ kee Pid Mins a hy i ary 
| ) ny y : { ST 4 ‘wie the area be, A 
Ls ‘ ad a Cote aie 


Mele ly othe pride’ ifti LA i hea 
; ys 4 ' a ee ( a) ‘ 
La phe a Bo gS ee a we ath a te aa 


H AN : Ne au el a mais Lal ‘ uy (7 ne ee 
= j/ } : a Kr NA A, ay 
Y ea, 
, : ae ba es Mt se 
Re aS ead eit ee 
ORME Coote act ots.) wi es 
’ " o ; Low So ey nid bye at fo | 
: hy ; ") th ae eaten ea 
{ ‘ i f ze y Ate a J Pnee 


* A i * 
oy oy 1 ( 
mAs va - 


é v- Cran 
4. sna 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 
ie ee OTBUICATL DEA OFZ NEVELATION |. v.niine ake 3 
Il. Tue Ipna or REVELATION AND THEORIES OF 
EGE BIA O Napisy har Bereta co) 10) ec eG OF 
Til. Tum INSPIRATION oF THE BIBLE ............. ot 
TV. Tre Brericat Ipea or INSPIRATION ........... 77 
V. “Scripture,” “ THe Scriptures,’ In tHe New 
PES TAM NTN do ter icaei ie (ieciitz. Sek Rae tm Hee 115 
VI. Tue Reat PRoBLEM oF INSPIRATION .......... 169 
Vie ss ODSINSRIRED) SCRIPTURE (20) ieee iin ae, 229 
VIII. “IvSays: ” “Scrrprurs Says: ’”“ Gop Says” .. 283- 
TEX ent e ORACLHS OF: GOD 22) ck). ioe oon 
XSePLNSPIRATION. AND: CRITICIGM¥ minis eye ereien tak 395 
APPENDIX 
Ty Loe Divine, ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE... 6.4208 c. 429, 
II. THe Canon oF THE NEW TESTAMENT ........ 451 


xl 








ma ies Wis ( 
x Rise he? nf vis WEAR 
rt i 1 ; ; ; are | Mag a is med i ny . es 
: ~ ) ; ; = al | ait n wit) fe 
‘¢ , | ft yf , 6 i ee be | ’ he ‘ia, THN uaa 
eee ls Lh Ota E gk a ea a 
Ve ba ns ae y aa i. a, oat: 
’ : A 7 al ji mie | io ve 
vy . "h 7 ye 4 ») iy J Why yt oh LP Sih bance ae 
; x Fy ‘9 a : ee, 
hk AAA eC ‘Nap . Gee 
A ota, : sy 
‘ i ; 
j vil ‘ f, 
a’ 
C it 
it : 
! 
{ 
A ‘oy ‘ 
4 
i a 
‘ : t : : 
: ait i . 
’ J ry r 
a” 4 i 
. rl ‘ 
0 : 4 
- 
5s a 
d ‘ ion i! 
’ : -* Ms . h ia f i 
te \ . 
‘ , 4 
' ' a 
, & 
; iy 7 Wer 
; ae / Tha 
i) ait 
AAe ag 
; n 
1 Rouge 
‘ ; oy 7 
’ q , 7 
i - 
RY eit 
sir} "> 
¥ ie , 7 2 in@ : 
“ra 
= 0 pe» \ , are ao 
« - - 
ms i re 
a tS } 
lie SUP?) ee ae 
we R amas ‘ 





ve Fi 
7 ren | r T : 7 7 7 a : i‘ 
; * oo ae a LNs Ai 







7 7 i i 
ij in rary i 7) 7 ; J Fl 
' dine me ses t ee er ras 
‘oh Ari ci . 

pu oe aay 





OTHER ARTICLES ON INSPIRATION AND 


I. 


1 


III. 


VE 


Vie 


VI. 


VII. 


THE BIBLE 


Apologetical Value of the Testaments of the Twelve 
Patriarchs. (Presb. Rev., V. I, 1880, pp. 57-84.) 


Syllabus of the Canon of the New Testament in the 


Second Century. 91 pp. Pittsburgh, 1881. 

The Canonicity of Second Peter. (Southern Presb. Rev., 
V. XXXII, 1882, pp. 45-75.) 

Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second 
Peter. (Southern Presb. Rev., V. XXXIV, 1888, pp. 
390-445. ) 

The Descriptive Names Applied to the New Testament 
Books by the Earliest Christian Writers. (Bibliotheca 
Sacra, V. XLII, 1885, pp. 545-564.) 

The Christian Canon. (The Philadelphian, V. I, 1887, 
pp. 300-304. ) 


. Paul’s Doctrine of the Old Testament. (Presb. Quar- 


terly, V. III, 1889, pp. 389-406. ) 
The Present Problem of Inspiration. (The Homiletic 
Rev., V. X XI, 1891, pp. 410-416.) 


Xlil 





@ Pi 
ai ve > 
pw y 5 
Ley : Wy 
qe 0 a 
‘hee 7 
at ytd 
Mice : 
1) Veo 
prey? 
> 
vig 
i yr. °" 
4 ¢ ’ > 
cial 
\ » 
, ‘ ‘ ay + ‘A " 
bik 
[ 
‘ 
> 2. 
Y AL 0 ihe b q ) 
sd a . 
, ; 
m8 
. TN sf 
wand! 7 i Fe 
va 
| 
j 
i [ 
T , y) 
j a? 
ril 
j 
' ‘ 4 i A 
‘; 
Daas 
+ 
i) { ' 
\ 
7 
“4 
- mo ; : 
Sy ; 
4 * . id 


’ a iA, ¢ 
‘ r i ae r id % itso vi 
nc SY EPR eee ae 
| Lf / iy . ae "1 rar > \ day’ 
* , * a ¢ 4 
i in pi Wer ay nr eh f heey i Af 
ie i Ye > PSE ROers 5 s Nad dha’ ey j 
wi, ; , -, rye: Owe - i. a Lr 
7 








Pe amet i re Te 


Wcrph WE st ei 


Aa Sh LN tL yO) Coe 
Re ee eet RN 
i , ‘ He vi Fi ; ae mA) mM} \™ ie ot ¥ ; oe i rio ia 


ae he 0 ar Beet: et oe ‘ i iy ut rf 
Ay NEN 8 ta md ha 
a a Sain, pi eel Tee ca 
OS TY ERIN oo Ay 
’ j 7 ap Kod *) 
ote gta te 


ee, ] cir 


I 
THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 








wa 


> } d ¥ 


rit _ % aye . 
‘ i vie LY TAA: 


~ 
9, 


Wt hie : 
; 1 4 j 
a ¢ 

i A i a ye ‘ 
@ 4d J 
= 3s gyi 
Ua 4 

nS pee: 





THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION * 


I. Tue Nature or REVELATION 


Tuereligion of the Bible is a frankly supernatural religion. ~~ 
By this is not meant merely that, according to it, all men, as 
creatures, live, move and have their being in God. It is meant 
that, according to it, God has intervened extraordinarily, in the 
course of the sinful world’s development, for the salvation of 
men otherwise lost. In Eden the Lord God had been present 
with sinless man in such a sense as to form a distinct element 
in his social environment (Gen. iii. 8). This intimate associa- 
tion was broken up by the Fall. But God did not therefore 
withdraw Himself from concernment with men. Rather, He 
began at once a series of interventions in human history by 
means of which man might be rescued from his sin and, de- 
spite it, brought to the end destined for him. These interven- 
tions involved the segregation of a people for Himself, by 
whom God should be known, and whose distinction should be 
that God should be “nigh unto them ” as He was not to other 
nations (Deut. iv. 7; Ps. exlv. 18). But this people was not 
permitted to imagine that it owed its segregation to anything 
in itself fitted to attract or determine the Divine preference; 
no consciousness was more poignant in Israel than that Jeho- 
vah had chosen it, not it Him, and that Jehovah’s choice of it 
rested solely on His gracious will. Nor was this people per- 
mitted to imagine that it was for its own sake alone that it had 
been singled out to be the sole recipient of the knowledge of 
Jehovah; it was made clear from the beginning that God’s 
mysteriously gracious dealing with it had as its ultimate end 
the blessing of the whole world (Gen. xil. 2.3; xvii. 4.5.6.16; 

1 Article “ Revelation,” from The International Standard Bible Encyclo- 


paedia, James Orr, General Editor, v. 4, pp. 2573-2582. Pub. Chicago, 1915, by 
The Howard-Severance Co. 


3 


4 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Xvill. 18; xxii. 18; cf Rom. iv. 13), the bringing together again 
of the divided families of the earth under the glorious reign 
of Jehovah, and the reversal of the curse under which the 
whole world lay for its sin (Gen. xii. 3). Meanwhile, however, 
Jehovah was known only in Israel. To Israel God showed His 
word and made known His statutes and judgments, and after 
this fashion He dealt with no other nation; and therefore none 
other knew His judgments (Ps. exlvii. 19f.). Accordingly, 
when the hope of Israel (who was also the desire of all nations) 
came, His own lips unhesitatingly declared that the salvation 
He brought, though of universal application, was “from the 
Jews” (Jn. iv. 22). And the nations to which this salvation 
had not been made known are declared by the chief agent in 
its proclamation to them to be, meanwhile, “ far off,” “having 
no hope ” and “ without God in the world” (Eph. ii. 12), be- 
cause they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and 
strangers from the covenant of the promise. 

The religion of the Bible thus announces itself, not as the 
product of men’s search after God, if haply they may feel after 
Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious 
God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth 
His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents 
itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak 
more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as 
the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against 
all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a 
sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man. 

It is not, however, implied in this exclusive claim to revela- 
tion — which is made by the religion of the Bible in all the 
stages of its history —that the living God, who made the 
heaven and the earth and the sea and all that in them is, has 
left Himself without witness among the peoples of the world 
(Acts xiv. 17). It is asserted indeed, that in the process of His 
redemptive work, God suffered for a season all the nations to 
walk in their own ways; but it is added that to none of them 
has He failed to do good, and to give from heaven rains and 
fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness. 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 5 


And not only is He represented as thus constantly showing 
Himself in His providence not far from any one of them, thus 
wooing them to seek Him if haply they might feel after Him 
and find Him (Acts xvil. 27), but as from the foundation of 
the world openly manifesting Himself to them in the works of 
His hands, in which His everlasting power and Divinity are 
clearly seen (Rom. i. 20). That men at large have not retained 
Him in their knowledge, or served Him as they ought, is not 
due therefore to failure on His part to keep open the way to 
knowledge of Him, but to the darkening of their senseless 
hearts by sin and to the vanity of their sin-deflected reason- 
ings (Rom. i. 21 ff.), by means of which they have supplanted 
the truth of God by a lie and have come to worship and serve 
the creature rather than the ever-blessed Creator. It is, indeed, 
precisely because in their sin they have thus held down the 
truth in unrighteousness and have refused to have God in their 
knowledge (so it is intimated) ; and because, moreover, in their 
sin, the revelation God gives of Himself in His works of crea- 
tion and providence no longer suffices for men’s needs, that 
God has intervened supernaturally in the course of history to 
form a people for Himself, through whom at length all the 
world should be blessed. 

It is quite obvious that there are brought before us in these 
several representations two species or stages of revelation, 
which should be discriminated to avoid confusion. There is the 
revelation which God continuously makes to all men: by it His 
power and Divinity are made known. And there is the revela- 
tion which He makes exclusively to His chosen people: through 
it His saving grace is made known. Both species or stages of 
revelation are insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. They 
are, for example, brought significantly together in such a dec- 
laration as we find in Ps. xix: ‘‘ The heavens declare the glory 
of God . . . their line is gone out through all the earth ” (vers. 
1.4); “ The law of Jehovah is perfect, restoring the soul” (ver. 
7). The Psalmist takes his beginning here from the praise of 
the glory of God, the Creator of all that 1s, which has been 
written upon the very heavens, that none may fail to see it. 


6 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


From this he rises, however, quickly to the more full-throated 
praise of the mercy of Jehovah, the covenant God, who has 
visited His people with saving instruction. Upon this higher 
revelation there is finally based a prayer for salvation from 
sin, which ends in a great threefold acclamation, instinct with 
adoring gratitude: “O Jehovah, my rock, and my redeemer ”’ 
(ver, 14). “ The heavens,” comments Lord Bacon, “ indeed tell 
of the glory of God, but not of His will according to which the 
poet prays to be pardoned and sanctified.” In so commenting, 
Lord Bacon touches the exact point of distinction between the 
two species or stages of revelation. The one is adapted to man 
as man; the other to man as sinner; and since man, on becom- 
ing sinner, has not ceased to be man, but has only acquired new 
needs requiring additional provisions to bring him to the end 
of his existence, so the revelation directed to man as sinner does 
not supersede that given to man as man, but supplements it 
with these new provisions for his attainment, in his new condi- 
tion of blindness, helplessness and guilt induced by sin, of the 
end of his being. 

These two species or stages of revelation have been com- 
monly distinguished from one another by the distinctive names 
of natural and supernatural revelation, or general and special 
revelation, or natural and soteriological revelation. Each of 
these modes of discriminating them has its particular fitness 
and describes a real difference between the two in nature, reach 
or purpose. The one is communicated through the media of 
natural phenomena, occurring in the course of Nature or of 
history; the other implies an intervention in the natural course 
of things and is not merely in source but in mode supernatural. 
The one is addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and 
is therefore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to a 
special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His 
salvation. The one has in view to meet and supply the natural 
need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to res- 
cue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its conse- 
quences. But, though thus distinguished from one another, it 
is important that the two species or stages of revelation should 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION ff 


not be set in opposition to one another, or the closeness of their 
mutual relations or the constancy of their interaction be ob- 
scured. They constitute together a unitary whole, and each is 
incomplete without the other. In its most general idea, revela- 
tion is rooted in creation and the relations with His intelligent 
creatures into which God has brought Himself by giving them 
being. Its object is to realize the end of man’s creation, to be 
attained only through knowledge of God and perfect and un- 
broken communion with Him. On the entrance of sin into the 
world, destroying this communion with God and obscuring the 
knowledge of Him derived from Nature, another mode of reve- 
lation was necessitated, having also another content, adapted 
to the new relation to God and the new conditions of intellect, 
heart and will brought about by sin. It must not be supposed, 
however, that this new mode of revelation was an ex post facto 
expedient, introduced to meet an unforeseen contingency. The 
actual course of human development was in the nature of the 
case the expected and the intended course of human develop- 
ment, for which man was created; and revelation, therefore, 
in its double form was the Divine purpose for man from the 
beginning, and constitutes a unitary provision for the realiza- 
tion of the end of his creation in the actual circumstances in 
which he exists. We may distinguish in this unitary revelation 
the two elements by the cooperation of which the effect is pro- 
duced; but we should bear in mind that only by their codpera- 
tion is the effect produced. Without special revelation, general 
revelation would be for sinful men incomplete and ineffective, 
and could issue, as in point of fact it has issued wherever it 
alone has been accessible, only in leaving them without excuse 
(Rom. i. 20). Without general revelation, special revelation 
would lack that basis in the fundamental knowledge of God as 
the mighty and wise, righteous and good, maker and ruler of 
all things, apart from which the further revelation of this great 
God’s interventions in the world for the salvation of sinners 
could not be either intelligible, credible or operative. 

Only in Eden has general revelation been adequate to the 
needs of man. Not being a sinner, man in Eden had no need of 


8 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


that grace of God itself by which sinners are restored to com- 
munion with Him, or of the special revelation of this grace of 
God to sinners to enable them to live with God. And not being 
a sinner, man in Eden, as he contemplated the works of God, 
saw God in the unclouded mirror of his mind with a clarity of 
vision, and lived with Him in the untroubled depths of his 
heart with a trustful intimacy of association, inconceivable to 
sinners. Nevertheless, the revelation of God in Eden was not 
merely “ natural.” Not only does the prohibition of the forbid- 
den fruit involve a positive commandment (Gen. 11. 16), but 
the whole history implies an immediacy of intercourse with 
God which cannot easily be set to the credit of the picturesque 
art of the narrative, or be fully accounted for by the vividness 
of the perception of God in His works proper to sinless crea- 
tures. The impression is strong that what is meant to be con- 
veyed to us is that man dwelt with God in Eden, and enjoyed 
with Him immediate and not merely mediate communion. In 
that case, we may understand that if man had not fallen, he 
would have continued to enjoy immediate intercourse with 
God, and that the cessation of this immediate intercourse is 
due to sin. It is not then the supernaturalness of special revela- 
tion which is rooted in sin, but, if we may be allowed the ex- 
pression, the specialness of supernatural revelation. Had man 
not fallen, heaven would have continued to le about him 
through all his history, as it lay about his infancy; every man 
would have enjoyed direct vision of God and immediate speech 
with Him. Man having fallen, the cherubim and the flame of a 
sword, turning every way, keep the path: and God breaks His 
way in a round-about fashion into man’s darkened heart to re- 
veal there His redemptive love. By slow steps and gradual 
stages He at once works out His saving purpose and molds the 
world for its reception, choosing a people for Himself and train- 
ing it through long and weary ages, until at last when the ful- 
ness of time has come, He bares His arm and sends out the. 
proclamation of His great salvation to all the earth. 

Certainly, from the gate of Eden onward, God’s general 
revelation ceased to be, in the strict sense, supernatural. It is, 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 9 


of course, not meant that God deserted His world and left it to 
fester in its iniquity. His providence still ruled over all, lead- 
ing steadily onward to the goal for which man had been cre- 
ated, and of the attainment of which in God’s own good time 
and way the very continuance of men’s existence, under God’s 
providential government, was a pledge. And His Spirit still 
everywhere wrought upon the hearts of men, stirring up all 
their powers (though created in the image of God, marred and 
impaired by sin) to their best activities, and to such splendid 
effect in every department of human achievement as to com- 
mand the admiration of all ages, and in the highest region of 
all, that of conduct, to call out from an apostle the encomium 
that though they had no law they did by nature (observe the 
word “nature’’) the things of the law. All this, however, re- 
mains within the limits of Nature, that is to say, within the 
sphere of operation of Divinely directed and assisted second 
causes. It illustrates merely the heights to which the powers 
of man may attain under the guidance of providence and the 
influences of what we have learned to call God’s “ common 
grace.” Nowhere, throughout the whole ethnic domain, are the 
conceptions of God and His ways put within the reach of man, 
through God’s revelation of Himself in the works of creation 
and providence, transcended; nowhere is the slightest knowl- 
edge betrayed of anything concerning God and His purposes, 
which could be known only by its being supernaturally told to 
men. Of the entire body of “ saving truth,” for example, which 
is the burden of what we call “ special revelation,” the whole 
heathen world remained in total ignorance. And even its hold 
on the general truths of religion, not being vitalized by super- 
natural enforcements, grew weak, and its knowledge of the very 
nature of God decayed, until it ran out to the dreadful issue 
which Paul sketches for us in that inspired philosophy of reli- 
gion which he incorporates in the latter part of the first chap- 
ter of the Epistle to the Romans. 

Behind even the ethnic development, there lay, of course, 
the supernatural intercourse of man with God which had ob- 
tained before the entrance of sin into the world, and the super- 


10 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


natural revelations at the gate of Eden (Gen. iii. 8), and at the 
second origin of the human race, the Flood (Gen. vii. 21.22; 
ix. 1-17). How long the tradition of this primitive revelation 
lingered in nooks and corners of the heathen world, condition- 
ing and vitalizing the natural revelation of God always acces- 
sible, we have no means of estimating. Neither is it easy to 
measure the effect of God’s special revelation of Himself to 
His people upon men outside the bounds of, indeed, but com- 
ing into contact with, this chosen people, or sharing with them 
a common natural inheritance. Lot and Ishmael and Esau can 
scarcely have been wholly ignorant of the word of God which 
came to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob; nor could the Egyp- 
tians from whose hands God wrested His people with a mighty 
arm fail to learn something of Jehovah, any more than the 
mixed multitudes who witnessed the ministry of Christ could 
fail to infer something from His gracious walk and mighty 
works. It is natural to infer that no nation which was inti- 
mately associated with Israel’s life could remain entirely un- 
affected by Israel’s revelation. But whatever impressions were 
thus conveyed reached apparently individuals only: the 
heathen which surrounded Israel, even those most closely af- 
fihated with Israel, remained heathen; they had no revelation. 
In the sporadic instances when God visited an alien with a 
supernatural communication — such as the dreams sent to 
Abimelech (Gen. xx.) and to Pharaoh (Gen. xl. xli.) and to 
Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 11. 1 ff.) and to the soldier in the camp 
of Midian (Jgs. vil. 13) —it was in the interests, not of the 
heathen world, but of the chosen people that they were sent; 
and these instances derive their significance wholly from this 
fact. There remain, no doubt, the mysterious figure of Mel- 
chizedek, perhaps also of Jethro, and the strange apparition of 
Balaam, who also, however, appear in the sacred narrative only 
in connection with the history of God’s dealings with His peo- 
ple and in their interest. Their unexplained appearance cannot 
in any event avail to modify the general fact that the life of 
the heathen peoples lay outside the supernatural revelation of 
God. The heathen were suffered to walk in their own ways 
(Acts xiv. 16). 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 11 


Il. Tue Process oF REVELATION 


Meanwhile, however, God had not forgotten them, but was 
preparing salvation for them also through the supernatural 
revelation of His grace that He was making to His people. Ac- 
cording to the Biblical representation, in the midst of and 
working confluently with the revelation which He has always 
been giving of Himself on the plane of Nature, God was mak- 
ing also from the very fall of man a further revelation of Him- 
self on the plane of grace. In contrast with His general, natu- 
ral revelation, in which all men by virtue of their very nature 
as men share, this special, supernatural revelation was granted 
at first only to individuals, then progressively to a family, a 
tribe, a nation, a race, until, when the fulness of time was come, 
it was made the possession of the whole world. It may be diffi- 
cult to obtain from Scripture a clear account of why God chose 
thus to give this revelation of His grace only progressively; or, 
to be more explicit, through the process of a historical develop- 
ment. Such is, however, the ordinary mode of the Divine work- 
ing: it is so that God made the worlds, it is so that He creates 
the human race itself, the recipient of this revelation, it 1s so 
that He builds up His kingdom in the world and in the indi- 
vidual soul, which only gradually comes whether to the knowl- 
edge of God or to the fruition of His salvation. As to the fact, 
the Scriptures are explicit, tracing for us, or rather embodying 
in their own growth, the record of the steady advance of this 
gracious revelation through definite stages from its first faint 
beginnings to its glorious completion in Jesus Christ. 

So express is its relation to the development of the kingdom 
of God itself, or rather to that great series of Divine opera- 
tions which are directed to the building up of the kingdom of 
God in the world, that it is sometimes confounded with them, 
or thought of as simply their reflection in the contemplating 
mind of man. Thus it is not infrequently said that revelation, 
meaning this special redemptive revelation, has been commu- 
nicated in deeds, not in words; and it is occasionally elabo- 
rately argued that the sole manner in which God has revealed 
Himself as the Saviour of sinners is just by performing those 


12 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


mighty acts by which sinners are saved. This is not, however, 
the Biblical representation. Revelation is, of course, often 
made through the instrumentality of deeds; and the series of 
His great redemptive acts by which He saves the world consti- 
tutes the preéminent revelation of the grace of God — so far 
as these redemptive acts are open to observation and are per- 
ceived in their significance. But revelation, after all, is the cor- 
relate of understanding and has as its proximate end just the 
production of knowledge, though not, of course, knowledge 
for its own sake, but for the sake of salvation. The series of the 
redemptive acts of God, accordingly, can properly be desig- 
nated “‘ revelation”? only when and so far as they are contem- 
plated as adapted and designed to produce knowledge of God 
and His purpose and methods of grace. No bare series of unex- 
plained acts can be thought, however, adapted to produce 
knowledge, especially if these acts be, as in this case, of a highly 
transcendental character. Nor can this particular series of acts 
be thought to have as its main design the production of knowl- 
edge; its main design is rather to save man. No doubt the pro- 
duction of knowledge of the Divine grace is one of the means 
by which this main design of the redemptive acts of God is at- 
tained. But this only renders it the more necessary that the 
proximate result of producing knowledge should not fail; and 
it is doubtless for this reason that the series of redemptive acts 
of God has not been left to explain itself, but the explanatory 
word has been added to it. Revelation thus appears, however, 
not as the mere reflection of the redeeming acts of God in the 
minds of men, but as a factor in the redeeming work of God, a 
component part of the series of His redeeming acts, without 
which that series would be incomplete and so far inoperative 
for its main end. Thus the Scriptures represent it, not con- 
founding revelation with the series of the redemptive acts of 
God, but placing it among the redemptive acts of God and giv- 
ing it a function as a substantive element in the operations by 
which the merciful God saves sinful men. It is therefore not 
made even a mere constant accompaniment of the redemptive 
acts of God, giving their explanation that they may be under- 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 13 


stood. It occupies a far more independent place among them 
than this, and as frequently precedes them to prepare their way 
as it accompanies or follows them to interpret their meaning. 
It is, in one word, itself a redemptive act of God and by no 
means the least important in the series of His redemptive acts. 

This might, indeed, have been inferred from its very na- 
ture, and from the nature of the salvation which was being 
wrought out by these redemptive acts of God. One of the most 
grievous of the effects of sin is the deformation of the image of 
God reflected in the human mind, and there can be no recov- 
ery from sin which does not bring with it the correction of this 
deformation and the reflection in the soul of man of the whole 
glory of the Lord God Almighty. Man is an intelligent being; 
his superiority over the brute is found, among other things, 
precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; and 
his blessedness is rooted in the true knowledge of his God — 
for this is life eternal, that we should know the only true God 
and Him whom He has sent. Dealing with man as an intelligent 
being, God the Lord has saved him by means of a revelation, 
by which he has been brought into an ever more and more ade- 
quate knowledge of God, and been led ever more and more to 
do his part in working out his own salvation with fear and 
trembling as he perceived with ever more and more clearness 
how God is working it out for him through mighty deeds of 
erace. 

This is not the place to trace, even in outline, from the ma- 
terial point of view, the development of God’s redemptive reve- 
lation from its first beginnings, in the promise given to Abra- 
ham — or rather in what has been called the Protevangelium 
at the gate of Eden — to its completion in the advent and work 
of Christ and the teaching of His apostles; a steadily advanc- 
ing development, which, as it lies spread out to view in the 
pages of Scripture, takes to those who look at it from the con- 
summation backward, the appearance of the shadow cast 
athwart preceding ages by the great figure of Christ. Even 
from the formal point of view, however, there has been pointed 
out a progressive advance in the method of revelation, conso- 


14 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


nant with its advance in content, or rather with the advancing 
stages of the building up of the kingdom of God, to subserve 

which is the whole object of revelation. Three distinct steps in 
~ revelation have been discriminated from this point of view. 
They are distinguished precisely by the increasing independ- 
ence of revelation of the deeds constituting the series of the re- 
demptive acts of God, in which, nevertheless, all revelation 1s 
a substantial element. Discriminations like this must not be 
taken too absolutely; and in the present instance the chrono- 
logical sequence cannot be pressed. But, with much interlacing, 
three generally successive stages of revelation may be recog- 
nized, producing periods at least characteristically of what we 
may somewhat conventionally call theophany, prophecy and 
inspiration. What may be somewhat indefinitely marked off as 
the Patriarchal age is characteristically ‘the period of Out- 
ward Manifestations, and Symbols, and Theophanies’”’: dur- 
ing it “God spoke to men through their senses, in physical 
phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensu- 
ous forms, as men, angels, ete. . . . In the Prophetic. age, on 
the contrary, the prevailing mode of revelation was by means 
of inward prophetic inspiration ”: God spoke to men charac- 
teristically by the movements of the Holy Spirit in their 
hearts. “ Prevailingly, at any rate from Samuel downwards, 
the supernatural revelation was a revelation in the hearts of 
the foremost thinkers of the people, or, as we call it, prophetic 
inspiration, without the aid of external sensuous symbols of 
God” (A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 1903, p. 148; ef. pp. 12- 
14, 145 ff.). This internal method of revelation reaches its cul- 
mination in the New Testament period, which is preéminently 
the age of the Spirit. What is especially characteristic of this 
age is revelation through the medium of the written word, 
what may be called apostolic as distinguished from prophetic 
inspiration. The revealing Spirit speaks through chosen men 
as His organs, but through these organs in such a fashion that 
the most intimate processes of their souls become the instru- 
ments by means of which He speaks His mind. Thus at all 
events there are brought clearly before us three well-marked 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 15 


modes of revelation, which we may perhaps designate respec- 
tively, not with perfect discrimination, it is true, but not mis- 
leadingly, (1) external manifestations, (2) internal suggestion, 
and (38) concursive operation. 


III. Mopts or REVELATION 


Theophany may be taken as the typical form of “ external 
manifestation”; but by its side may be ranged all of those 
mighty works by which God makes Himself known, including 
express miracles, no doubt, but along with them every super- 
natural intervention in the affairs of men, by means of which 
a better understanding is communicated of what God is or 
what are His purposes of grace to a sinful race. Under “ inter- 
nal suggestion ” may be subsumed all the characteristic phe- 
nomena of what is most properly spoken of as “ prophecy ”’: 
visions and dreams, which, according to a fundamental pas- 
sage (Num. xi. 6), constitute the typical forms of prophecy, 
and with them the whole “ prophetic word,” which shares its 
essential characteristic with visions and dreams, since it comes 
not by the will of man but from God. By “ concursive opera- 
tion”? may be meant that form of revelation illustrated in an 
inspired psalm or epistle or history, in which no human activity | 
—not even the control of the will —is superseded, but the Holy 
Spirit works in, with and through them all in such a manner as 
to communicate to the product qualities distinctly superhu- 
man. There is no age in the history of the religion of the Bible, 
from that of Moses to that of Christ and His apostles, in which 
all these modes of revelation do not find place. One or another 
may seem particularly characteristic of this age or of that; but 
they all occur in every age. And they occur side by side, broadly 
speaking, on the same level. No discrimination is drawn. be- 
tween them in point of worthiness as modes of revelation, and 
much less in point of purity in the revelations communicated 
through them. The circumstance that God spoke to Moses, not 
by dream or vision but mouth to mouth, is, indeed, adverted to 
(Num. xi. 8) as a proof of the peculiar favor shown to Moses 


16 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


and even of the superior dignity of Moses above other organs 
of revelation: God admitted him to an intimacy of intercourse 
which He did not accord to others. But though Moses was thus 
distinguished above all others in the dealings of God with him, 
no distinction is drawn between the revelations given through 
him and those given through other organs of revelation in point 
either of Divinity or of authority. And beyond this we have no 
Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revela- 
tion with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve 
as vehicles of Divine communications. But there is no sug- 
gestion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand 
on a lower plane than any others; and we should not fail to 
remember that the essential characteristics of revelations 
through dreams are shared by all forms of revelation in which 
(whether we should call them visions or not) the images or 
ideas which fill, or pass in procession through, the conscious- 
ness are determined by some other power than the recipient’s 
own will. It may seem natural to suppose that revelations rise 
in rank in proportion to the fulness of the engagement of the 
mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we 
should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of 
a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Di- 
vine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is 
from God. This is what gives unity to the whole process of 
~ revelation, given though it may be in divers portions and in 
divers manners and distributed though it may be through the 
ages in accordance with the mere will of God, or as it may have 
suited His developing purpose — this and its unitary end, 
which is ever the building up of the kingdom of God. In what- 
ever diversity of forms, by means of whatever variety of modes, 
in whatever distinguishable stages it is given, it is ever the 
revelation of the One God, and it is ever the one consistently 
developing redemptive revelation of God. 

On a prima facie view it may indeed seem likely that a dif- 
ference in the quality of their supernaturalness would inevita- 
bly obtain between revelations given through such divergent 
modes. The completely supernatural character of revelations 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION ey, 


given in theophanies is obvious. He who will not allow that 
God speaks to man, to make known His gracious purposes to- 
ward him, has no other recourse here than to pronounce the 
stories legendary.. The objectivity of the mode of communica- 
tion which is adopted is intense, and it is thrown up to obser- 
vation with the greatest emphasis. Into the natural life of man 
God intrudes in a purely supernatural manner, bearing a purely 
supernatural communication. In these communications we are 
given accordingly just a series of “naked messages of God.” 
But not even in the Patriarchal age were all revelations given 
in theophanies or objective appearances. There were dreams, 
and visions, and revelations without explicit intimation in the 
narrative of how they were communicated. And when we pass 
on in the history, we do not, indeed, leave behind us theoph- 
anies and objective appearances. It is not only made the very 
characteristic of Moses, the greatest figure in the whole history 
of revelation except only that of Christ, that he knew God face 
to face (Deut. xxxiv. 10), and God spoke to him mouth to 
mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches (Num. xii. 
8); but throughout the whole history of revelation down to 
the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, God 
has shown Himself visibly to His servants whenever it has 
seemed good to Him to do so and has spoken with them in ob- 
jective speech. Nevertheless, it is expressly made the charac- 
teristic of the Prophetic age that God makes Himself known 
to His Servants “in a vision,” “in a dream” (Num. xii. 6). 
And although, throughout its entire duration, God, in fulfil- 
ment of His promise (Deut. xviii. 18), put His words in the 
mouths of His prophets and gave them His commandments to 
speak, yet it would seem inherent in the very employment of 
men as instruments of revelation that the words of God given 
through them are spoken by human mouths; and the purity 
of their supernaturalness may seem so far obscured. And when 
it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves 
Himself in the delivery of His messages, but their minds and 
hearts as well — the play of their religious feelings, or the proc- 
esses of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their mem- 


18 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history — the 
supernatural element in the communication may easily seem 
to retire still farther into the background. It can scarcely be a 
matter of surprise, therefore, that question has been raised as 
to the relation of the natural and the supernatural in such reve- 
lations, and, in many current manners of thinking and speak- 
ing of them, the completeness of their supernaturalness has 
been limited and curtailed in the interests of the natural in- 
strumentalities employed. The plausibility of such reasoning 
renders it the more necessary that we should observe the 
unvarying emphasis which the Scriptures place upon the ab- 
solute supernaturalness of revelation in all its modes alike. 
In the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural 
character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circum- 
stance that it has been given through the instrumentality 
of men. They affirm, indeed, with the greatest possible 
emphasis that the Divine word delivered through men is 
the pure word of God, diluted with no human admixture 
whatever. . 

We have already been led to note that even on the occasion 
when Moses is exalted above all other organs of revelation 
(Num. xu. 6 ff.), in point of dignity and favor, no suggestion 
whatever is made of any inferiority, in either the directness or 
the purity of their supernaturalness, attaching to other organs 
of revelation. There might never afterward arise a prophet in 
Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face 
(Deut. xxxiv. 10). But each of the whole series of prophets 
raised up by Jehovah that the people might always know His 
will was to be like Moses in speaking to the people only what 
Jehovah commanded them (Deut. xviii. 15.18.20). In this great 
promise, securing to Israel the succession of prophets, there is 
also included a declaration of precisely how Jehovah would 
communicate His messages not so much to them as through 
them. “ I will raise them up a prophet from among their breth- 
ren, like unto thee,” we read (Deut. xviii. 18), “ and I will put 
my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that 
I shall command him.” The process of revelation through the 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 19 


prophets was a process by which Jehovah put His words in the 
mouths of the prophets, and the prophets spoke precisely these 
words and no others. So the prophets themselves ever asserted. 
“Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth,” 
explains Jeremiah in his account of how he received his prophe- 
cies, ‘ and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words 
in thy mouth ” (Jer. 1.9; ef, v. 14; Isa. li. 16; lix. 21; Num. xxil. 
35; xxill. 5.12.16). Accordingly, the words “ with which ” they 
spoke were not their own but the Lord’s: ‘‘ And he said unto 
me,’ records Ezekiel, “ Son of man, go, get thee unto the house 
of Israel, and speak with my words unto them” (Ezk. ii. 4). 
It is a process of nothing other than “ dictation ” which is thus 
described (2S. xiv. 3.19), though, of course, the question may 
remain open of the exact processes by which this dictation 1s 
accomplished. The fundamental passage which brings the cen- 
tral fact before us in the most vivid manner is, no doubt, the 
account of the commissioning of Moses and Aaron given in Ex. 
iv. 10-17; vii. 1-7. Here, in the most express words, Jehovah 
declares that He who made the mouth can be with it to teach 
it what to speak, and announces the precise function of a 
prophet to be that he is “a mouth of God,” who speaks not his 
own but God’s words. Accordingly, the Hebrew name for 
“ prophet ” (nabhi’), whatever may be its etymology, means 
throughout the Scriptures just ‘spokesman,’ though not 
“spokesman ” in general, but spokesman by way of eminence, 
that is, God’s spokesman; and the characteristic formula by 
which a prophetic declaration is announced is: “ The word of 
Jehovah came to me,” or the brief “saith Jehovah” (sy 
px, n’eum Yahweb). In no case does a prophet put his words 
forward as his own words. That he is a prophet at all is due not 
to choice on his own part, but to a call of God, obeyed often 
with reluctance; and he prophesies or forbears to prophesy, 
not according to his own will but as the Lord opens and shuts 
his mouth (Ezk, 111. 26 f.) and creates for him the fruit of the 
lips (Isa. Iv. 19; ef. vi. 7; 1. 4). In contrast with the false 
prophets, he strenuously asserts that he does not speak out of 
his own heart (“ heart ” in Biblical language includes the whole 


20 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


inner man), but all that he proclaims is the pure word of 
Jehovah. 

The fundamental passage does not quite leave the matter, 
however, with this general declaration. It describes the charac- 
teristic manner in which Jehovah communicates His messages 
to His prophets as through the medium of visions and dreams. 
Neither visions in the technical sense of that word, nor dreams, 
appear, however, to have been the customary mode of revela- 
tion to the prophets, the record of whose revelations has come 
down to us. But, on the other hand, there are numerous indica- 
tions in the record that the universal mode of revelation to 
them was one which was in some sense a vision, and can be 
classed only in the category distinctively so called. 

The whole nomenclature of prophecy presupposes, indeed, 
its vision-form. Prophecy is distinctively a word, and what is 
delivered by the prophets is proclaimed as the “ word of Je- 
hovah.” That it should be announced by the formula, “ Thus 
saith the Lord,” is, therefore, only what we expect; and we 
are prepared for such a description of its process as: ‘‘ The 
Lord Jehovah . . . wakeneth mine ear to hear.” He “ hath 
opened mine ear ” (Isa. 1. 4.5). But this is not the way of speak- 

ing of their messages which is most usual in the prophets. 
' Rather is the whole body of prophecy cursorily presented as a 
thing seen. Isaiah places at the head of his book: ‘‘ The vision 
of Isaiah . . . which he saw ” (cf. Isa. xxix. 10.11; Ob. ver. 1) ; 
and then proceeds to set at the head of subordinate sections the 
remarkable words, “The word that Isaiah . . . saw” (ii. 1); 
“the burden [margin “ oracle”] ... which Isaiah .. . did 
see”? (xl. 1). Similarly there stand at the head of other 
prophecies: ‘“‘ the words of Amos . . . which he saw” (Am. i. 
1); “the word of Jehovah that came to Micah . . . which he 
saw” (Mic. i. 1); “the oracle which Habakkuk the prophet 
did see”’ (Hab. 1. 1 margin); and elsewhere such language oc- 
curs as this: “ the word that Jehovah hath showed me” (Jer. 
Xxxvlll. 21); “the prophets have seen . . . oracles” (Lam. ii. 
14); “the word of Jehovah came . . . and I looked, and, be- 
hold ” (Eizk, 1. 3.4) ; “ Woe unto the foolish prophets, that fol- 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 21 


low their own spirit, and have seen nothing” (Ezk. xiii. 3); 
“T .. . willlook forth to see what he will speak with me, .. . 
Jehovah ... said, Write the vision” (Hab. 11. 1f.). It is an 
inadequate explanation of such language to suppose it merely 
a relic of a time when vision was more predominantly the form 
of revelation. There is no proof that vision in the technical 
sense ever was more predominantly the form of revelation than 
in the days of the great writing prophets; and such language 
as we have quoted too obviously represents the living point of 
view of the prophets to admit of the supposition that it was 
merely conventional on their lips. The prophets, in a word, 
represent the Divine communications which they received as 
given to them in some sense in visions. 

It is possible, no doubt, to exaggerate the significance of 
this. It is an exaggeration, for example, to insist that therefore 
all the Divine communications made to the prophets must 
have come to them in external appearances and objective 
speech, addressed to and received by means of the bodily eye 
and ear. This would be to break down the distinction between 
manifestation and revelation, and to assimilate the mode of 
prophetic revelation to that granted to Moses, though these 
are expressly distinguished (Num. xii. 6-8). It is also an ex- 
aggeration to insist that therefore the prophetic state must be 
conceived as that of strict ecstasy, involving the complete 
abeyance of all mental life on the part of the prophet (amen- 
tia), and possibly also accompanying physical effects. It is 
quite clear from the records which the prophets themselves 
give us of their revelations that their intelligence was alert in 
all stages of their reception of them. The purpose of both these 
extreme views is the good one of doing full justice to the objec- 
tivity of the revelations vouchsafed to the prophets. If these 
revelations took place entirely externally to the prophet, who 
merely stood off and contemplated them, or if they were im- 
planted in the prophets by a process so violent as not only to 
supersede their mental activity but, for the time being, to an- 
nihilate it, it would be quite clear that they came from a source 
other than the prophets’ own minds. It is undoubtedly the fun- 


a REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


damental contention of the prophets that the revelations given 
through them are not their own but wholly God’s. The signifi- 
cant language we have just quoted from Ezk. xii. 3: “ Woe 
unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have 
seen nothing,” is a typical utterance of their sense of the com- 
plete objectivity of their messages. What distinguishes the 
false prophets is precisely that they “ prophesy out of their 
own heart ” (Ezk. xiii. 2-17), or, to draw the antithesis sharply, 
that “ they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of 
the mouth of Jehovah ” (Jer. xxiii. 16.26; xiv. 14). But these 
extreme views fail to do justice, the one to the equally impor- 
tant fact that the word of God, given through the prophets, 
comes as the pure and unmixed word of God not merely to, 
but from, the prophets; and the other to the equally obvious © 
fact that the intelligence of the prophets is alert throughout 
the whole process of the reception and delivery of the revela- 
tion made through them. : 

That which gives to prophecy as a mode of revelation its 
place in the category of visions, strictly so called, and dreams, 
is that it shares with them the distinguishing characteristic 
which determines the class. In them all alike the movements 
of the mind are determined by something extraneous to the 
subject’s will, or rather, since we are speaking of supernatu- 
rally given dreams and visions, extraneous to the totality of 
the subject’s own psychoses. A power not himself takes posses- 
sion of his consciousness and determines it according to its will. 
That power, in the case of the prophets, was fully recognized 
and energetically asserted to be Jehovah Himself or, to be 
more specific, the Spirit of Jehovah (1S. x. 6.10; Neh. ix. 30; 
Zec. vil. 12; Joel ii. 28.29). The prophets were therefore ‘men 
of the Spirit’ (Hos. ix. 7). What constituted them prophets 
was that the Spirit was put upon them (Isa. xlii. 1) or poured 
out on them (Joel ii. 28.29), and they were consequently filled 
with the Spirit (Mice. ii. 8), or, in another but equivalent locu- 
tion, that “ the hand ” of the Lord, or “ the power of the hand ” 
of the Lord, was upon them (2 K. iii. 15; Ezk. i. 3; iii. 14.22: 
XXXlll. 22; xxxvii. 1; xl. 1), that is to say, they were under the 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 23 


divine control. This control is represented as complete and 
compelling, so that, under it, the prophet becomes not the 
“mover,” but the “ moved ” in the formation of his message. 
The apostle Peter very purely reflects the prophetic conscious- 
ness in his well-known declaration: ‘ No prophecy of seripture 
comes..of. private interpretation; for prophecy was never 
brought by the will of man; but it was as borne by the Holy 
Spirit that-men spoke from God’ (2 Pet. i. 20.21). 

What this language of Peter emphasizes — and what is em- 
phasized in the whole account which the prophets give of their 
own consciousness — is, to speak plainly, the passivity of the 
prophets with respect to the revelation given through them. 
This is the significance of the phrase: ‘it was as borne by the 
Holy Spirit that men spoke from God.’ To be “ borne ” ( g€peur, 
phérein) is not the same as to be led (ayew, dgein), much less 
to be guided or directed (odnyetv, hodégein): he that is 
“borne ” contributes nothing to the movement induced, but 
is the object to be moved. The term “ passivity ” 1s, perhaps, 
however, liable to some misapprehension, and should not be 
overstrained. It is not intended to deny that the intelligence 
of the prophets was active in the reception of their message; it 
was by means of their active intelligence that their message 
was received: their intelligence was the instrument of revela- 
tion. It is intended to deny only that their intelligence was 
_active in the production of their message: that it was creatively 
‘as distinguished from receptively active. For reception itself 
is a kind of activity. What the prophets are solicitous that their 
readers shall understand is that they are in no sense co-authors 
with God of their messages. Their messages are given them, 
given them entire, and given them precisely as they are given 
out by them. God speaks through them: they are not merely 
His messengers, but “‘ His mouth.” But at the same time their 
intelligence is active in the reception, retention and announc- 
ing of their messages, contributing nothing to them but pre- 
senting fit instruments for the communication of them — in- 
struments capable of understanding, responding profoundly 
to and zealously proclaiming them. 


24. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


There is, no doubt, a not unnatural hesitancy abroad in 
thinking of the prophets as exhibiting only such merely recep- 
tive activities. In the interests of their personalities, we are 
asked not to represent God_as dealing mechanically with them, 
pouring His revelations into their souls to be simply received 
as in so many buckets, or violently wresting their minds from 
their own proper action that He may do His own thinking with 
them. Must we not rather suppose, we are asked, that all reve- 
lations must be “ psychologically mediated,’ must be given 
“after the mode of moral mediation,” and must be made first 
of all their recipients’ “ own spiritual possession”’ ? And is not, 
in point of fact, the personality of each prophet clearly trace- 
able in his message, and that to such an extent as to compel us 
to recognize him as in a true sense its real author? The plausi- 
bility of such questionings should not be permitted to obscure 
the fact that the mode of the communication of the prophetic 
messages which is suggested by them is directly contradicted 
by the prophets’ own representations of their relations to the 
revealing Spirit. In the prophets’ own view they were just in- 
struments through whom God gave revelations which came 
from them, not as their own product, but as the pure word of 
Jehovah. Neither should the plausibility of such questionings 
blind us to their speciousness. They exploit subordinate con- 
siderations, which are not without their validity in their own 
place and under their own limiting conditions, as if they were 
the determining or even the sole considerations in the case, and 
in neglect of the really determining considerations, God is Him- 
self the author of the instruments He employs for the commu- 
nication of His messages to men and has framed them into 
precisely the instruments He desired for the exact communica- 
tion of His message. There is just ground for the expectation 
that He will use all the instruments He employs according to 
their natures; intelligent beings therefore as intelligent beings, 
moral agents as moral agents. But there is no just ground for 
asserting that God is incapable of employing the intelligent 
beings He has Himself created and formed to His will, to pro- 
claim His messages purely as He gives them to them; or of 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 25 


making truly the possession of rational minds conceptions 
which they have themselves had no part in creating. And there 
is no ground for imagining that God is unable to frame His own 
message in the language of the organs of His revelation with- 
out its thereby ceasing to be, because expressed in a fashion 
natural to these organs, therefore purely His message. One 
would suppose it to lie in the very nature of the case that if the 
Lord makes any revelation to men, He would do it in the lan- 
guage of men; or, to individualize more explicitly, in the lan- 
guage of the man He employs as the organ of His revelation; 
and that naturally means, not the language of his nation or 
circle merely, but his own particular language, inclusive of all 
that gives individuality to his self-expression. We may speak 
of this, if we will, as “ the accommodation of the revealing God 
to the several prophetic individualities.” But we should avoid 
thinking of it externally and therefore mechanically, as if the 
revealing Spirit artificially phrased the message which He 
gives through each prophet in the particular forms of speech 
proper to the individuality of each, so as to create the illusion 
that the message comes out of the heart of the prophet himself. 
Precisely what the prophets affirm is that their messages do 
not come out of their own hearts and do not represent the work- 
ings of their own spirits. Nor is there any illusion in the phe- 
nomenon we are contemplating; and it 1s a much more inti- 

nate, and, we may add, a much more interesting phenomenon 
\than an external ‘‘ accommodation” of speech to individual 
habitudes. It includes, on the one hand, the “ accommodation. ”’~ 
of the prophet, through his total preparation, to the speech in 
which the revelation to be given through him is to be clothed; 
and on the other involves little more than the consistent carry-” 
ing into detail of the broad principle that God uses the instru- 
ments He employs in accordance with their natures. 

No doubt, on adequate occasion, the very stones might cry 
out by the power of God, and dumb beasts speak, and mysteri- 
ous voices sound forth from the void; and there have not been 
lacking instances in which men have been compelled by the 
same power to speak what they would not, and in languages 


%6 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


whose very sounds were strange to their ears. But ordinarily 
when God the Lord would speak to men He avails Himself of 
the services of a human tongue with which to speak, and He 
employs this tongue according to its nature as a tongue and ac- 
cording to the particular nature of the tongue which He em- 
ploys. It is vain to say that the message delivered through the 
instrumentality of this tongue is conditioned at least in its 
form by the tongue by which it is spoken, if not, indeed, lim- 
ited, curtailed, in some degree determined even in its matter, 
by it. Not only was it God the Lord who made the tongue, and 
who made this particular tongue with all its peculiarities, not 
without regard to the message He would deliver through it; 
but His control of it is perfect and complete, and it is as absurd 
to say that He cannot speak His message by it purely without 
that message suffering change from the peculiarities of its tone 
and modes of enunciation, as it would be to say that no new 
truth can be announced in any language because the elements 
of speech by the combination of which the truth in question is 
announced are already in existence with their fixed range of 
connotation. The marks of the several individualities im- 
printed on the messages of the prophets, in other words, 
are only a part of the general fact that these messages are 
couched in human language, and in no way beyond that 
general fact affect their purity as direct communications from 
God. 

A new set of problems is raised by the mode of revelation 
which we have called “ concursive operation.” This mode of 
revelation differs from prophecy, properly so called, precisely 
by the employment in it, as is not done in prophecy, of the 
total personality of the organ of revelation, as a factor. It has 
been common to speak of the mode of the Spirit’s action in this 
form of revelation, therefore, as an assistance, a superintend- 
ence, a direction, a control, the meaning being that the effect 
aimed at — the discovery and enunciation of Divine truth — 
is attained through the action of the human powers — histori- 
cal research, logical reasoning, ethical thought, religious as- 
piration — acting not by themselves, however, but under the 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 27 


prevailing assistance, superintendence, direction, control of 
the Divine Spirit. This manner of speaking has the advantage 
of setting this mode of revelation sharply in contrast with 
prophetic revelation, as involving merely a determining, and 
not, as in prophetic revelation, a supercessive action of the re- 
vealing Spirit. We are warned, however, against pressing this 
discrimination too far by the inclusion of the whole body of 
Scripture in such passages as 2 Pet. i. 20 f. in the category of 
prophecy, and the assignment of their origin not to a mere 
“leading ” but to the “bearing” of the Holy Spirit. In any 
event such terms as assistance, superintendence, direction, con- 
trol, inadequately express the nature of the Spirit’s action in 
revelation by ‘‘ concursive operation.” The Spirit is not to be 
conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed 
for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies 
they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, 
but as working confluently in, with and by them, elevating 
them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so 
that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under 
His inspiration do His work and reach His aim. The product, 
therefore, which is attained by their means is His product 
through them. It is this fact which gives to the process the right 
to be called actively, and to the product the right to be called 
passively, a revelation. Although the circumstance that what is 
done is done by and through the action of human powers keeps 
the product in form and quality in a true sense human, yet the 
confluent operation of the Holy Spirit throughout the whole 
process raises the result above what could by any possibility be 
achieved by mere human powers and constitutes it expressly a 
supernatural product. The human traits are traceable through- 
out its whole extent, but at bottom it is a Divine gift, and the 
language of Paul is the most proper mode of speech that could 
be applied to it: “ Which things also we speak, not in words 
which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth ” 
(1 Cor. 11. 18); “ The things which I write unto you... . are 
the commandment of the Lord ” (1 Cor. xiv. 37). 

It is supposed that all the forms of special or redemptive 


28 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


revelation which underlie and give its content to the religion of 
the Bible may without violence be subsumed under one or an- 
other of these three modes — external manifestation, internal 
suggestion, and concursive operation. All, that is, except the 
culminating revelation, not through, but in, Jesus Christ. As 
in His person, in which dwells all the fulness of the Godhead 
bodily, He rises above all classification and is sui generis; so 
the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers 
portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has 
been given and sums up in itself all that has been or can be 
made known of God and of His redemption. He does not so 
much make a revelation of God as Himself is the revelation of 
God; He does not merely disclose God’s purpose of redemp- 
tion, He is unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and 
sanctification and redemption. The theophanies are but faint 
shadows in comparison with His manifestation of God in the 
flesh. The prophets could prophesy only as the Spirit of Christ 
which was in them testified, revealing to them as to servants 
one or another of the secrets of the Lord Jehovah; from Him 
as His Son, Jehovah has no secrets, but whatsoever the Father 
knows that the Son knows also. Whatever truth men have 
been made partakers of by the Spirit of truth is His (for all 
things whatsoever the Father hath are His) and is taken by 
the Spirit of truth and declared to men that He may be glori- 
fied. Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in 
Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would 
also be all sealed up in Him —so little is revelation conveyed 
by fact alone, without the word — had it not been thus taken 
by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of 
the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying 
and giving its effect to the fact of Christ. And when this fact 
was in ali its meaning made the possession of men, revelation 
was completed and in that sense ceased. Jesus Christ is no less 
the end of revelation than He is the end of the law. 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION 29 


IV. BrBpuicaL TERMINOLOGY 


There is not much additional to be learned concerning the 
nature and processes of revelation, from the terms currently 
employed in Scripture to express the idea. These terms are or- 
dinarily the common words for disclosing, making known, mak- 
ing manifest, applied with more or less heightened significance 
to supernatural acts or effects in kind. In the English Bible 
(AV ) the verb “ reveal ” occurs about fifty-one times, of which 
twenty-two are in the Old Testament and twenty-nine in the 
New Testament. In the Old Testament the word is always the 
rendering of a Hebrew term m3, galah, or its Aramaic equiv- 
alent ma, g‘lah, the root meaning of which appears to be 
“nakedness.” When applied to revelation, it seems to hint at 
the removal of obstacles to perception or the uncovering of ob- 
jects to perception. In the New Testament the word “ reveal ” 
is always (with the single exception of Lk. ii. 35) the rendering 
of a Greek term azoxadtrrw, apokaliptd (but in 2 Thess. i. 7; 
1 Pet. iv. 18 the corresponding noun 470Kxadvp1s, apokdlupsis), 
which has a very similar basal significance with its Hebrew 
parallel. As this Hebrew word formed no substantive in this 
sense, the noun “ revelation ”’ does not occur in the English 
Old Testament, the idea being expressed, however, by other 
Hebrew terms variously rendered. It occurs in the English New 
Testament, on the other hand, about a dozen times, and al- 
ways as the rendering of the substantive corresponding to the 
verb rendered “ reveal ” (apokdlupsis). On the face of the Eng- 
lish Bible, the terms “ reveal,” “ revelation ” bear therefore uni- 
formly the general sense of “ disclose,” ‘ disclosure.” The idea 
is found in the Bible, however, much more frequently than the 
terms “reveal,” “ revelation ” in English versions. Indeed, the 
Hebrew and Greek terms exclusively so rendered occur more 
frequently in this sense than in this rendering in the English 
Bible. And by their side there stand various other terms which 
express in one way or another the general conception. 

In the New Testament the verb davepow, phanerdd, with 
the general sense of making manifest, manifesting, is the most 


30 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


common of these. It differs from apokalupto as the more gen- 
eral and external term from the more special and inward. 
Other terms also are occasionally used: érubavera, epiphanea, 
‘“ manifestation ” (2 Thess. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. 1. 10; 
iv. 1; Tit. ii. 13; cf. émidaivw, epiphaind, Tit. 11. 11; ii. 4); 
Sexviw, deiknid (Rev. i. 1; xvii. 1; xxii. 1.6.8; cf. Acts ix. 16; 
1 Tim. iv. 15); é&myéowar, exégéomai (Jn. i. 18), of which, 
however, only one perhaps — ypnuarifw, chrématizo (Mt. u. 
12.22 Lk. i. 26-TActsexm22) Heb. vill co spexliel sit eee 
xpnuatiouos , chrématismés (Rom. xi. 4) — calls for particu- 
lar notice as in a special way, according to its usage, express- 
ing the idea of a Divine communication. 

In the Old Testament, the common Hebrew verb for “ see- 
ing” (M89, raah) is used in its appropriate stems, with God 
as the subject, for “ appearing,” “showing”: “the Lord ap- 
peared unto .. .”; “the word which the Lord showed me.” 
And from this verb not only is an active substantive formed 
which supplied the more ancient designation of the official or- 
gan or revelation: M8", rd’eh, “seer ’’; but also objective sub- 
stantives, M82, mar’ah, and A8V3, mar’eh which were used 
to designate the thing seen in a revelation — the “ vision.” 
By the side of these terms there were others in use, derived 
from a root which supplies to the Aramaic its common word 
for “seeing,” but in Hebrew has a somewhat more pregnant 
meaning, NM, hazah. Its active derivative, Min, hézeh, was a 
designation of a prophet which remained in occasional use, 
alternating with the more customary S33, nabhi, long after 
M8", ro’eh, had become practically obsolete; and its passive 
derivatives hazon, hizzayon, hazuth, mahazeh provided the or- 
dinary terms for the substance of the revelation or “ vision.” 
The distinction between the two sets of terms, derived respec- 
tively from ra@’ah and hazah, while not to be unduly pressed, 
seems to lie in the direction that the former suggests external 
manifestations and the latter internal revelations. The ro’eh is 
he to whom Divine manifestations, the hozeh he to whom Di- 
vine communications, have been vouchsafed; the mar’eh is an 
appearance, the hazon and its companions a vision. It may be 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION BA 


of interest to observe that mar’ah is the term employed in 
Num. xii. 6, while it is hazon which commonly occurs in the 
headings of the written prophecies to indicate their revelatory 
character. From this it may possibly be inferred that in the 
former passage it is the mode, in the latter the contents of the 
revelation that is emphasized. Perhaps a like distinction may 
be traced between the hazon of Dan. viii. 15 and the mar’eh ot 
the next verse. The ordinary verb for “ knowing,” 97, yadha’, 
expressing in its causative stems the idea of making known, 
informing, is also very naturally employed, with God as its 
subject, in the sense of revealing, and that, in accordance with 
the natural sense of the word, with a tendency to pregnancy of 
implication, of revealing effectively, of not merely uncovering 
to observation, but making to know. Accordingly, it is paral- 
leled not merely with 33, ga@lah (Ps. xeviii. 2: ‘ The Lord hath 
made known his salvation; his righteousness hath he dis- 
played in the sight of the nation’), but also with such terms as 
129, lamadh (Ps. xxv. 4: ‘Make known to me thy ways, O 
Lord: teach me thy paths’). This verb yadha‘ forms no sub- 
stantive in the sense of “revelation” (cf. 2", da‘ath, Num. 
Monel PS) XIX, 3). 

The most common vehicles of the idea of “revelation ” in 
the Old Testament are, however, two expressions which are yet 
to be mentioned. These are the phrase, ‘“ word of Jehovah,” 
and the term commonly but inadequately rendered in the Eng- 
lish versions by “law.” The former (d’bhar Yahweh, varied 
to d’bhar ’Elohim or d*bhar ha-’Elohim; cf. n’um Yahweh, 
massa, Yahweh) occurs scores of times and is at once the sim- 
plest and the most colorless designation of a Divine communi- 
cation. By the latter (torah), the proper meaning of which is 
“instruction,” a strong implication of authoritativeness is con- 
veyed; and, in this sense, it becomes what may be called the 
technical designation of a specifically Divine communication. 
The two are not infrequently brought together, as in Isa. 1. 10: 
“ Hear the word of Jehovah, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto 
the law [margin “ teaching ”] of our God, ye people of Gomor- 
Manse sory isa. io Viceiv. 2; “For outvot*Zion shall go 


>) 


32 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


forth the law [margin “ instruction ”’], and the word of Jeho- 
vah from Jerusalem.” Both terms are used for any Divine com- 
munication of whatever extent; and both came to be employed 
to express the entire body of Divine revelation, conceived as a 
unitary whole. In this comprehensive usage, the emphasis of 
the one came to fall more on the graciousness, and of the other 
more on the authoritativeness of this body of Divine revela- 
tion; and both passed into the New Testament with these im- 
plications. “ The word of God,” or simply “ the word,” comes 
thus to mean in the New Testament just the gospel, “ the word 
of the proclamation of redemption, that is, all that which God 
has to say to man, and causes to be said ” looking to his salva- 
tion. It expresses, in a word, precisely what we technically 
speak of as God’s redemptive revelation. “ The law,” on the 
other hand, means in this New Testament use, just the whole 
body of the authoritative instruction which God has given 
men. It expresses, in other words, what we commonly speak of 
as God’s supernatural revelation. The two things, of course, 
are the same: God’s authoritative revelation is His gracious 
revelation; God’s redemptive revelation is His supernatural 
revelation. The two terms merely look at the one aggregate of 
revelation from two aspects, and each emphasizes its own as- 
pect of this one aggregated revelation. 

Now, this aggregated revelation lay before the men of the 
New Testament in a written form, and it was impossible to 
speak freely of it without consciousness of and at least occa- 
sional reference to its written form. Accordingly we hear of a 
Word of God that is written (Jn. xv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 54), and the 
Divine Word is naturally contrasted with mere tradition, as if 
its written form were of its very idea (Mk. vii. 10); indeed, the 
written body of revelation — with an emphasis on its written 
form — is designated expressly ‘ the prophetic word’ (2 Pet. i. 
19). More distinetly still, “ the Law ” comes to be thought of 
as a written, not exactly, code, but body of Divinely authorita- 
tive instructions. The phrase, “ It is written in your law ” (Jn. 
x. 34; xv. 25; Rom. 11. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 21), acquires the precise 
sense of, “It is set forth in your authoritative Scriptures, all 


THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF REVELATION De 


the content of which is ‘ law,’ that is, Divine instruction.” Thus 
“the Word of God,” “ the Law,” came to mean just the written 
body of revelation, what we call, and what the New Testament 
writers called, in the same high sense which we give the term, 
“the Scriptures.” These “ Scriptures ” are thus identified with 
the revelation of God, conceived as a well-defined corpus, and 
two conceptions rise before us which have had a determining 
part to play in the history of Christianity — the conception of 
an authoritative Canon of Scripture, and the conception of this 
Canon of Scripture as just the Word of God written. The 
former conception was thrown into prominence in opposition 
to the gnostic heresies in the earliest age of the church, and 
gave rise to a richly varied mode of speech concerning the 
Scriptures, emphasizing their authority in legal language, 
which goes back to and rests on the Biblical usage of “ Law.” 
The latter it was left to the Reformation to do justice to in its 
struggle against, on the one side, the Romish depression of the 
Scriptures in favor of the traditions of the church, and on the 
other side the Enthusiasts’ supercession of them in the inter- 
ests of the “inner Word.” When Tertullian, on the one hand, 
speaks of the Scriptures as an “ Instrument,” a legal docu- 
ment, his terminology has an express warrant in the Scriptures’ 
own usage of torah, “ law,’ to designate their entire content. 
And when John Gerhard argues that “ between the Word of 
God and Sacred Scripture, taken in a material sense, there is 
no real difference,” he is only declaring plainly what is defi- 
nitely implied in the New Testament use of “the Word of 
God” with the written revelation in mind. What is important > 
to recognize is that the Scriptures themselves represent the 
Scriptures as not merely containing here and there the record 
of revelations — “ words of God,” toroth — given by God, but 
as themselves, in all their extent, a revelation, an authoritative 
body of gracious instructions from God; or, since they alone, 
of all the revelations which God may have given, are extant 
—rather as the Revelation, the only “ Word of God” acces- 
sible to men, in all their parts “ law,” that is, authoritative in- 
struction from God. 


34 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


LITERATURE. — Herman Witsius, ‘“ De Prophetis et Prophetia ” in 
Miscell. Sacr., I, Leiden, 1736, 1-318; G. F. Oehler, Theology of the 
OT, ET, Edinburgh, 1874, I, part I (and the appropriate sections in 
other Bib. Theologies) ; H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek?, I, 
Kampen, 1906, 290-406 (and the appropriate sections in other dog- 
matic treatises); H. Voigt, Fundamentaldogmatik, Gotha, 1874, 
173 ff; A. Kuyper, Encyclopaedia of Sacred Theology, ET, New 
York, 1898, div. III, ch. 11; A. E. Krauss, Die Lehre von der Offen- 
barung, Gotha, 1868; C. F. Fritzsche, De revelationis notione biblica, 
Leipzig, 1828; E. W. Hengstenberg, The Christology of the OT, ET?, 
Edinburgh, 1868, IV, Appendix 6, pp. 396-444; E. Konig, Der Offen- 
barungsbegriff des AT, Leipzig, 1882; A. B. Davidson, OT Prophecy, 
1903; W. J. Beecher, The Prophets and the Promise, New York, 1905; 
James Orr, The Christian View of God and the World, 1893, as per 
Index, “ Revelation,” and Revelation and Inspiration, London and 
New York, 1910. Also: T. Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian 
Belief, ET, New York, 1874; G. P. Fisher, The Nature and Method 
of Revelation, New York, 1890; C. M. Mead, Supernatural Revela- 
tion, 1889; J. Quirmbach, Die Lehre des h. Paulus von der natiir- 
lichen Gotteserkenntnis, etc., Freiburg, 1906. 


II 


THE IDEA OF REVELATION AND 
THEORIES OF REVELATION 


























'é@y vir 
' ie LD. a _ 4 ” ay an ie 
‘, , r AM an ae ae 
mere.) ol : WSS Als At ant J ae fi 4 ‘4 ; } 
4 i \ vA : | me ALA Me ; yy j i . ‘ i i ; WY ae as 
WB? aS 4 : A SAT UMA Y p baie ‘ Ay ‘y ; a _ 
AAR OERS te Paes tm 
mm inti) e fl \ an | 1 we L c ¥ i 
‘ae th j ie ayo? es) v 
A) at ta ent , . i : 
| ae ; 
Dat 7 a - iT; vv 7 
ea DARN lhe PN 
. Ap 5 if . 7) i 1 y 
by). A t L ‘ i i ay 
‘5 eae uP i i ¥" i Ke , ry i 
un aA Ya r : ; Tt ~~ rad 
Au ie i) aay 4 LI Bes 
‘VA ae ian) 7" ie Pa ey aM , ON, ny 
h oy f Th ul A : Dat Wy oe ' f ; 
cer) ay eh ‘¢arae aa A em fans mh 









v 

ae Wee 
i Mor jeg 
br 1 TAWLe i 






7 , | “se ; 
aaa a) ’ nN dH ix Pata at ut Wis uh 7 ta 
hh Ril 7) ? : i 
De) ' ; 
. } , f Diy 1 bel 
va a tay 
\iee V ‘vn | 1 
ii n he 
f, 1 Oy yi Wf id 4 
i A > y ie Leh 
‘ " » d ‘s paar Bt if 
; AV ir? Ses 4 bah! ig Be a if VR ae ay i: a ’ tak rr Bee 
, ONY f \ i ee i Ne Biel ale 
y : \ ; i , aC WARY ; % a rR tate GPR TT f iw i ( tan 
j ‘ 4 i +3) vy Shad ing Bd Wve wr a ; ] f ia is 4 TH 
Y * 1 va) - ‘ Ny ney : nM ty xt Ls Ay PY ryt h: are Ae ed ig 
. . . 1's ROG ANIA PA Na wus 
' ae i i) Aw a ae ie ats Ri 4 A att By, sent is My tay ' 
i , ‘ ! fait! 4 ti “ We Ms ey 
| Sy yy ted Ape Ath "% it ae 
vt SAS ay) in tA vay as nee My ha a ee he po 4 
r AS AP, om ate As te ah) € te a r fat ‘ oy i ey 
BRS ph 8) pte NRO yt Se thee 
‘ , ‘ pel at ; f , ac 
AL i 1S tek i i ee a nn ae ae 
wis i ws ; : DM } ii iy ONG 2 oy ae, in ti! h 7 * 
Ne ’ i i RAABA! { Ry i bh tae itn if nG ai 
; : , : ‘ iavint es ps hy \ A Nay i ae Ms io sy va A eR oie 
‘ . : i 7 oe j : Ati ") i; i 
: 4 nly i oN ‘ Aad ua +, 
( ; ah COS oid er ian NER Ti ui tok 
I ‘ ate = TAY ON he i (sie 
ae j { ; id AM Pes Ven Ih we) as 
; . y i Ree (hy 7 Pein’ eer aul 
f : i ’ rvs W anh ae WA Pa the 
‘ Ak ‘ 5 ma pet ht he te an sie 
\ ‘ 7 ert ‘ iN wi ovine aD os a : 
iit / rae : Pry i a Dad 
i : / ‘ a 1 i AY i 
‘ as | a ae 
at) My u oR 7 y a F boast i 
4 4 ; ; } ‘ Ca ¥S ic Tek! . 
J ‘ ’ . t : Fe) i : j oy \ i) Wy ‘bd 
yp? 1 © Lf ; a. . if f 
my as i Ul 5) i 
tp Ny , , ren nf | i 7 7 iy by ‘ lia ith, 
ih t [ i f } al pt ; j ry eel 
5 ‘ Cif ae, Ph A , Wak A “a , a 
eo aA RRR: 7 Hiei ba leo 
" 7 Pie " ! J } uf Ay J as) a I Tan) 8 1a 
age 1 ‘ vay ay i} Vevey Reh my ; ‘ 
‘1 Wry ivi | i ‘ \ a eth } 
1 } Aare A La Ai! wae i, Vey 
: iN ae iy € ‘ Tt y wg | f , i) t ii ~~ J 
) Al Wi GRY (pee One : Joa Weer 
1 ¥ ee: » Lida fie bey ) ee nnd 4 
Al my ¥) if 4 {! alt aeNe i? nd Nora 
‘ { - : Vie A - wae ¢ hs] 7 Ft At tip! ri if 
; : : his $e Vd Vuh aM car dAON « , REIL he NAN, ‘i 
es le, ) } ' ery ; (a t s ae" 1 
a bs ee : } : i hy Nay ve mee ¥ Une We a i Tie ia 
yeu ; ‘ r i ‘ ‘ Y i; iia ‘ ay nde A<)i w \ ab ee ae if al) Ty 
v 7 ih , ‘ i ' 2 ie 4) | ry 7 > hie , 7y AG om t me va y a he 
BE Aik SOWA Rey sy Mae! doll 
A ag 
4 ‘ iA yee) 
4 ; , boa 
ie "i Ls Ay "4 F h 
y4 % bin Cave . 
A ¢ ua \ ry i P 
y i 3. y t 
1 oe : y i] 
Ned wy bis oe 
a yi aroma ene 
») ’ yon ae! tas 
$ % Las’ o 7 a, \ 
bial? Pa oan 
& 3 ’ rd ay! 
uf 7 Vite ‘ie ar 
Lb ie > 
We } ’ As i aN as, f 
Te ’ iets ru By, 
LA ys ‘ At ‘ , i ‘ 
i } ar ; yy ih Ike nn ‘hy 
ii A vee ay G A up Ms ay , 
ae ¢ ’ ue ay! oe YA 
yt ALS 6/12 er ana 
al vis yi ry a a | mee STAY Mh 


THE IDEA OF REVELATION AND 
THEORIES OF REVELATION * 


REVELATION [from Latin revela’tio, an unveiling, revealing, 
derivative of revela’re, unveil; re-, back + vela’re, to veil, de- 
rivative of ve’lum, a veil]: in its active meaning, the act of 
God by which he communicates to man the truth concerning 
himself — his nature, works, will, or purposes; in the passive 
meaning, the knowledge resultant upon such activity of God. 
The term is commonly employed in two senses: a wider — gen- 

—eral revelation; and a narrower — special revelation. In its 
wider sense it includes all modes in which God makes himself 
known to men; or, passively, all knowledge concerning God 
however attained, inasmuch as it is conceived that all such 
knowledge is, in one way or another, wrought by him. In its 
narrower sense it is confined to the communication of knowl- 
edge in a supernatural as distinguished from a natural mode; 
or, passively, to the knowledge of God which has been super- 
naturally made known to men. The reality of general revela- 
tion is disputed by none but the anti-theist and agnostic, of 
whom one denies the existence of a God to make himself 
known, and the other doubts the capacity of the human intel- 
lect, if there be a God, to read the vestiges he has left of him- 
self in his handiwork. Most types of modern theology explicitly 
allow that all knowledge of God rests on revelation; that God 
can be known only because and so far as he reveals himself. In 
this the extremest “liberals,” such as Biedermann, Lipsius, 
and Pfleiderer, agree with the extremest “ conservatives.” 
Revelation is everywhere represented as the implication of 
theism, and as necessary to the very being of religion: “ The 
man who does not believe that God can speak to him will not 

1 Article “ Revelation,” from Universal Cyclopedia and Atlas, R. Johnson 
ed. v. 10, pp. 79-81. Pub. N. Y., 1909, by D. Appleton and Co. 

37 


38 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


speak to God” (A. M. Fairbairn). It is only with reference to 
the reality of special revelation that debate concerning revela- 
tion continues; and it is this that Christian apologetics needs 
to validate. Here, too, the controversy is ultimately with anti- 
theistic presuppositions, with the postulates of an extreme de- 
ism or of an essential pantheism; but it is proximately with all 
those types of thought which seek to mediate between deistic 
or pantheizing conceptions and those of a truly Christian 
theism. 

In the eighteenth century the debate was chiefly with deism 
in its one-sided emphasis upon the divine transcendence, and 
with the several compromising schemes which grew up in the 
course of the conflict, such as pure rationalism and dogmatistic 
rationalism. The deist denied the reality of all special revela- 
tion, on the grounds that it was not necessary for man and was 
either metaphysically impossible or morally unworthy of God. 
Convinced of the reality of special revelation, the rationalist 
still denied its necessity, while the dogmatist, admitting also 
its necessity, denied that it constituted the authoritative 
ground of the acceptance of truth. Kant’s criticism struck a 
twofold blow at rationalism. On the negative side his treat- 
ment of the theistic proofs discredited the basis of natural 
(general) revelation, in which the rationalist placed his whole 
confidence. Thus the way was prepared for philosophical ag- 
nosticism and for that Christian agnosticism which is exempli- 
fied in the school of Ritschl. On the positive side he prepared 
the way for the idealistic philosophy, whose fundamentally 
pantheistic presuppositions introduced a radical change in the 
form of the controversy concerning the reality of a special reve- 
lation without in any way altering its essence. Instead of deny- 
ing the supernatural with the deists, this new mode of thought 
formally denied the natural. All thought was conceived as the 
immanent work of God. This change of position antiquated the 
forms of statement and argument which had been wrought out 
against the deists; but the question at issue still remained the 
same — whether there is any special revelation of God possi- 
ble, actual, extant, whether man has received any other knowl- 


THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION og 


edge of God than what is excogitable by the normal action of 
his own unaided faculties. Men’s ontology of the human facul- 
ties and activities was changed; it was now affirmed that all 
that they excogitated was of God, and the natural was accord- 
ingly labeled supernatural. But a special supernatural inter- 
position for a new gift of knowledge continued to be denied as 
strenuously as before. Thus it has come about that, in the nine- 
teenth century, the controversy as to special revelation is no 
longer chiefly with the one-sided emphasis upon the transcend- 
ence of God of the deist, but with the equally one-sided em- 
phasis upon the immanence of God of the pantheist, and with 
the various compromising schemes which have grown up in the 
course of the conflict, through efforts to mediate between pan- 
theism and a truly Christian theism. It is no longer necessary 
to prove that God may and does speak in the souls of men; it 
is admitted on all hands that he reveals himself unceasingly 
through all the activities of creaturely minds. The task has 
come to be to distinguish between God’s general and God’s 
special revelations, to prove the possibility and actuality of 
the latter alongside of the former, and to vindicate for it a su- 
pernaturalness of a more immediate order than that which is 
freely attributed to all the thought of man concerning divine 
things. 

In order to defend the idea of distinctively supernatural 
revelation against this insidious undermining, it has become 
necessary, in defining it in its highest and strictest sense, to em- 
phasize the supernatural in the mode of knowledge and not 
merely in its source. When stress is Jaid upon the source only 
without taking into account the mode of knowledge, the way 
lies open to those who postulate immanent deity in all human 
thought to confound the categories of reason and revelation, 
and so practically to do away with the latter altogether. Even 
when the data on which our faculties work belong to a distine- 
tively supernatural order, yet so long as the mode of acquisi- 
tion of knowledge from them is conceived as purely human, the 
resultant knowledge remains natural knowledge; and, since in- 
tuition is a purely human mode of knowledge, so-called intui- 


40 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


tions of divine truth would form no exception to this classifi- 
cation. Only such knowledge as is immediately communicated 
by God is, in the highest and strictest sense, supernaturally 
revealed. The differentia of revelation in its narrowest and 
strictest sense, therefore, is not merely that the knowledge so 
designated has God for its source, nor merely that it becomes 
the property of men by a supernatural agency, but further 
that it does not emerge into human consciousness as an acquisi- 
tion of the human faculties, pure and simple. 

Such a conception may give us a narrower category than 
that usually called special revelation. In contending for its 
reality it is by no means denied that there are other revelations 
of God which may deserve the name of special or supernatural 
in a distinctive sense. It is only affirmed that among the other 
modes in which God has revealed himself there exists also this 
mode of revelation, viz., a direct and immediate communica- 
tion of truth, not only from God but by God, to minds which 
occupy relatively to the attainment of this truth a passive or 
receptive attitude, so that the mode of its acquisition is as su- 
pernatural as its source. In the knowledge of God which is 
acquired by man in the normal use of his own faculties — 
naturally, therefore, as to mode — some deserves the name of 
special and supernatural above the rest, because the data upon 
which the human faculties work in acquiring it belong to a 
supernatural order. Such knowledge forms an intermediate 
class between that obtained by the faculties working upon nat- 
ural data and that obtained in a supernatural mode as well as 
from a supernatural source. Again, in the knowledge of God, 
communicated by the objective activities of his Spirit upon 
the minds of special organs of revelation — supernaturally, 
thus, as to immediate origin as well as to ultimate source — 
some may emerge into consciousness along the lines of the or- 
dinary action of the human faculties. Such knowledge would 
form a still higher intermediate class — between that obtained 
by the natural faculties working according to their native pow- 
ers on supernatural data and that obtained in a purely super- 
natural mode, as well as from a supernatural source and by a 


THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION Al 


supernatural agency. These modes of revelation are not to be 
overlooked. But neither is it to be overlooked that among the 
ways in which God has revealed himself is also this way — 
that he has spoken to man as Spirit to spirit, mouth to mouth, 
and has made himself and his gracious purposes known to him 
in an immediate and direct word of God, which is simply re-_ 
ceived and not in any sense attained by man. In these revela- 
tions we reach the culminating category of special revelation, 
in which its peculiar character is most clearly seen. And it is 
these direct revelations which modern thought finds most diffi- 
cult to allow to be real, and which Christian apologists must 
especially vindicate. 


THEORIES OF REVELATION 


In the state of the case which has just been pointed out, it 
is a matter of course that recent theories of revelation should 
very frequently leave no or but little place for the highest form 
of revelation, that by the direct word of God. The lowest class 
of theories represent revelation as taking place only through 
the purely natural activities of the human mind, and deny the 
reality of any special action of the Divine Spirit directly on the 
mind in the communication of revealed truth. Those who share 
this general position may differ very greatly in their presuppo- 
sitions. They may, from a fundamentally deistic standpoint, 
jealously guard the processes of human thought from all intru-: 
sion on the part of God; or they may, from a fundamentally 
pantheistic standpoint, look upon all human thought as only 
the unfolding of the divine thought. They may differ also very 
greatly as to the nature and source of the objective data on 
which the mind is supposed to work in obtaining its knowledge 
of God. But they are at one in conceiving that which from the 
divine side is spoken of as revelation, as on the human side, 
simply the natural development of the moral and religious con- 
sciousness. The extreme deistic theory allows the possibility of 
no knowledge of God except what is obtained by the human 
mind working upon the data supplied by creation to the exclu- 


42 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


sion of providential government. Modern speculative theists 
correct the deistic conception by postulating an immanent di- 
vine activity, both in external providence and in mental ac- 
tion. The data on which the mind works are supplied, accord- 
ing to them, not only by creation, but also by God’s moral 
government; and the theory grades upward in proportion as 
something like a special providence is admitted in the peculiar 
function ascribed to Israel in developing the idea of God, and 
the significance of Jesus Christ as the embodiment of the per- 
fect relation between God and man is recognized. (Bieder- 
mann, “ Christl. Dogmatik,” 1., 264; Lipsius, ‘ Dogmatik,” 41; 
Pfleiderer, “ Religionsphilosophie,”’ iv., 46.) The school of 
Ritschl, though they speak of a “ positive revelation ” in Jesus 
Christ, make no real advance upon this. Denying not only all 
mystical connection of the soul with God, but also all rational 
knowledge of divine things, they confine the data of revelation 
to the historical manifestation of Christ, which makes an 1m- 
pression on the minds of men such as justifies us in speaking of 
him as revealing God to us. (Herrmann, “ Der Begriff der Of- 
fenbarung,” and “ Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott ”; Kaf- 
tan, “ Das Wesen,” etc. ) 

We are on higher ground, however, although still moving 
in essentially the same circle of conceptions as to the nature of 
revelation, when we rise to the theory which identifies reve- 
lation strictly with the series of redemptive acts (Koehler, 
“Stud. und Kritiken,” 1852, p. 875). From this point of view, 
as truly as from that of the deist or speculative theist, revela- 
tion is confined to the purely external manifestation of God in 
a series of acts. It is differentiated from the conceptions of the 
deist and speculative theist only in the nature of the works of 
God, which are supposed to supply the data which are observed 
and worked into knowledge by the unaided activities of the hu- 
man mind. In emphasizing here those acts of a special provi- 
dence which constitute the redemptive activity of God, this 
theory for the first time lays the foundation for a distinction 
between general and special revelation; and it grades upward 
in proportion as the truly miraculous character of God’s re- 


THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION 43 


demptive work is recognized, and acts of a truly miraculous 
nature are included in it. And it rises above itself in proportion 
as, along with the supernatural character of the series of objec- 
tive acts with which it formally identifies revelation, it recog- 
nizes an immediate action of God’s Spirit on the mind of man, 
preparing, fitting, and enabling him to apprehend and interpret 
aright the revelation made objectively in the redemptive acts. 
J. Chr. K. Hofmann in his earlier work, “ Prophecy and Fulfill- 
ment,” announces this theory in a lower form, but corrects it 
in his later “ Schriftbeweis.” Richard Rothe (‘ Zur Dogmatik,”’ 
p. 04) is an outstanding example of one of its higher forms. To 
him revelation consists fundamentally in the “ manifestation ” 
of God in the series of redemptive acts, by which God enters 
into natural history by means of an unambiguously supernatu- 
ral and peculiarly divine history, and which man is enabled to 
understand and rightly to interpret by virtue of an inward 
work of the Divine Spirit that Rothe calls “ inspiration.” But 
this internal action of the Spirit does not communicate new 
truth; it’only enables the subject to combine the elements of 
knowledge naturally received into a new combination, from 
which springs an essentially new thought which he is clearly 
conscious that he did not produce. The theory propounded by 
Prof. A. B. Bruce in his well-known lectures on “ The Chief 
End of Revelation” stands possibly one stage higher than 
Rothe’s, to which it bears a very express relation. Dr. Bruce 
speaks with great circumspection. He represents revelation as 
consisting in the “ self-manifestation of God in human history 
as the God of a gracious purpose — the manifestation being 
made not merely or chiefly by words, but very specially by 
deeds” (p. 155); while he looks upon “ inspiration” as “ not 
enabling the prophets to originate a new idea of God,’ but 
“rather as assisting them to read aright the divine name and 
nature.” Dr. Bruce transcends the position of the class of the- 
orists here under consideration in proportion as he magnifies 
the office of inner “ inspiration,” and, above all, in proportion 
to the extent of meaning which he attaches to the saving clause 
that revelation is not merely by word, but also by deed. The 


44 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


theory commended by the great name of Bishop B. F. Westcott 
(“ The Gospel of Life ’’) is quite similar to Dr. Bruce’s. 

By these transitional theories we are already carried well 
into a second class of theories, which recognize that revelation 
is fundamentally the work of the Spirit of God in direct com- 
munication with the human mind. At its lowest level this con- 
ception need not rise above the pantheistic postulate of the un- 
folding of the life and thought of God within the world. The 
Divine Spirit stirs men’s hearts, and feelings and ideas spring 
up, which are no less revelations of God than movements of 
the human soul. A highér level is attained when the action of 
God is conceived as working in the heart of man an inward cer- 
tainty of divine life — as, for example, by Schultz (“ Old Tes- 
tament Theology”); revelation being confined as much as 
possible to the inner life of man apparently to avoid the recog- 
nition of objective miracle. A still higher level is reached where 
the action of the Spirit is thought of — after the fashion of 
Rothe, for example — as a necesary aid granted to certain men 
to enable them to‘apprehend and interpret aright the objective 
manifestation of God. The theory rises in character in propor- 
tion as the necessity of this action of the Spirit, its relative im- 
portance, and the nature of the effect produced by it are mag- 
nified. So long, however, as it conceives of this work of the 
Spirit as secondary, and ordinarily if not invariably successive 
to the series of redemptive acts of God, which are thought to 
constitute the real core of the revelation, it falls short of the 
biblical idea. According to the biblical representations, the fun- 
damental element in revelation is not the objective process of 
redemptive acts, but the revealing operations of the Spirit of 
God, which run through the whole series of modes of commu- 
nication proper to Spirit, culminating in communications by 
the objective word. The characteristic element in the Bible’ 
idea of revelation in its highest sense is that the organs of reve- | 
lation are not creatively concerned in the revelations made | 
through them, but occupy a receptive attitude. The contents of | 
their messages are not something thought out, inferred, hoped, | 
or feared by them, but something conveyed to them, often ‘ 


THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION 46 


forced upon them by the irresistible might of the revealing 
Spirit. No conception can do justice to the Bible idea of reve- 
lation which neglects these facts. Nor is justice done even to 
the rational idea of revelation when they are neglected. Here, 
too, we must interpret by the highest category in our reach. 
“Can man commune with man,” it has been eloquently asked, 
“through the high gift of language, and is the Infinite mind 
not to express itself, or is it to do so but faintly or uncertainly, 
through dumb material symbols, never by blessed speech? ”’ 
(W. Morrison, “ Footprints of the Revealer,” p. 52.) 


Tue DoctRINE oF REVELATION 


-The doctrine of-revelation which has been wrought out by 
Christian thinkers in their effort to do justice to all the bibli- 
cal facts, includes the following features. God has never left 
himself without a witness. In the act of creation he has im- 
pressed himself on the work of his hands. In his work of provi- 
dence he manifests himself as the righteous ruler of the world. 
Through this natural revelation men in the normal use of rea- 
son rise to a knowledge of God — a notitia Dei acquisita, based 
on the notitia Dei insita — which is trustworthy and valuable, 
but is insufficient for their necessities as sinners, and by its very 
insufficiency awakens a longing for a fuller knowledge of God 
and his purposes. To this purely natural revelation God has 
added a’ revelation of himself as the God of grace, in a con- 
nected series of redemptive acts, which constitute as a whole 
the mighty process of the new creation. To even the natural 
mind contemplating this seriés of supernatural acts which cul- 
minate in the coming of Christ, a higher knowledge of God 
should be conveyed than what is attainable from mere nature, 
though it would be limited to the capacity of the natural mind 
to apprehend divine things. In the process of the new creation 
God, however, works also inwardly by his regenerating grace, 
creating new hearts in men and illuminating their minds for 
apprehending divine things: thus, over against the new mani- 
festation of himself in the series of redemptive acts, he creates 


46 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


a new subject to apprehend and profit by them. But neither by 
the presentation of supernatural facts to the mind nor by the 
breaking of the power of sin within, by which the eyes of the 
mind were holden that they should not see, is the human mind 
enabled to rise above itself, that it may know as God knows, 
unravel the manifestation of his gracious purposes from the in- 
completed pattern which he is weaving into the fabric of his- 
tory, or even interpret aright an unexplained series of marvel- 
ous facts involving mysteries which “ angels desire to look 
into.” It may be doubted whether even the supreme revelation 
of God in Jesus Christ could have been known as such in the 
absence of preparatory, accompanying and succeeding explan- 
atory revelations in words: ‘‘ the kingdom of God cometh not 
with observation.”’ God has therefore, in his infinite mercy, 
_added a revelation of himself, strictly so called, communicat- 
ing by his Spirit.directly to men knowledge concerning himself, 
his works, will, and purposes. The modes of communication 
may be various — by dreams or visions, in ecstasy or theoph- 
any, by inward guidance, or by the simple objective word; but 
in all cases the object and result are the direct supernatural 
communication of special knowledge. | 

Of this special revelation it is to be said: (1) It was not 
given all at once, but progressively, “ by divers portions and in 
divers manners,” in the form of a regular historical develop- 
ment. (2) Its progressive unfolding stands in a very express re- 
lation to the progress of God’s redemptive work. If it is not to 
be conceived, on the one hand, however, as an isolated act, 
wholly out of relation to God’s redemptive work, neither is it 
to be simply identified with the series of his redemptive acts. 
The phrase, “ revelation is for redemption and not for instruc- 
tion,’ presents a false antithesis. Revelation as such is cer- 
tainly just “to make wise,” though it is to make wise only 
“unto salvation.” It isnot an alternative name for the redemp- 
tive process, but a specific part of the redemptive process. Nor 
does it merely grow out of the redemptive acts as their accom- 
panying or following explanation; it is rather itself one of the 
redemptive acts, and takes its place along with the other re- 


THE IDEA AND THEORIES OF REVELATION 47 


demptive acts, co-operative with them to the one great end. 
(3) Its relation to miracles has often been very unnecessarily 
confused by one-sided statements. Miracles are not merely 
credentials of revelation, but vehicles of revelation as well; 
but they are primarily crederitials; and some of them are so 
barely “ signs” as to serve no other purpose. As works of God, 
however, they are inevitably revelatory of God. Because the 
nature of the acts performed necessarily reveals the character 
of the actor is no proof, nevertheless, that their primary pur- 
pose was self-revelation; but this fact gives them a place in 
revelation itself; and as revelation as a whole is a substantial 
part of the redemptive work of God, also in the redemptive 
work of God. (4) Its relation to predictive prophecy is in some 
respects different. As a rule, at all events, predictive prophecy 
is primarily a part of revelation, and becomes a credential of it 
only secondarily, on account of the nature of the particular 
revelation which it conveys. When a revelation is, in its very 
contents, such as could come only from God, it obviously be- 
comes a credential of itself as a revelation, and carries with it 
an evidence of the divine character of the whole body of reve- 
lation with which it stands in organic connection. (5) Its rela- 
tion to the Scriptures is already apparent from what has been 
said. As revelation does not exist solely for the increase. of 
_knowledge,. but by increasing knowledge to build up the king- 
dom of God, so neither did it come into being for no other pur- 
pose than the production of the Scriptures. The Scriptures also 
are a means to the one end, and exist only.as a part of God’s 
redemptive work. But if, thus, the Scriptures can not be ex- 
alted as the sole end of revelation, neither can they be degraded 
into the mere human record of revelation. They are themselves 
a substantial part of God’s revelation; one form which his re- 
vealing activity chose for itself; and that its final and complete 
form, adopted as such for the very purpose of making God’s re- 
vealed will the permanent and universal possession of man. 
Among the manifold methods of God’s revelation, revelation 
through “ inspiration” thus takes its natural place; and the 
Scriptures, as the product of this “ inspiration,’ become thus 


48 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


a work of God; not only a substantial part of revelation, but, 
along with the rest of revelation, a substantial part of his re- 
demptive work. Along with the other acts of God which make 
up the connected series of his redemptive acts, the giving of the 
Scriptures ranks as an element of the building up of the king- 
dom of God. That within the limits of Scripture there appears 
the record of revelations in a narrower and stricter sense of the 
term, in nowise voids its claim to be itself revelation. Scripture 
records the sequence of God’s great redeeming acts. But it is 
much more than merely “ the record, the interpretation, and 
the literary reflection of God’s grace in history.” Scripture re- 
cords the direct revelations which God gave to men in days 
past, so far as those revelations were intended for permanent 
and universal use. But it is much more than a record of past 
revelations. It is itself the final revelation of God, completing 
the whole disclosure of his unfathomable love to lost sinners, 
the whole proclamation of his purposes of grace, and the whole 
exhibition of his gracious provisions for their salvation. 


ITI 
THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 


















hy | 
1 ' 
fad du nhs 1 . 
a ae a: - 
¢ ‘ ? 7 DS. Pa 
‘ i h Ti . ' ‘ ite — ‘ ohn ; 
? - im hip A 7 
ie ity a he | i we bee AT 
| \j ’ i] ivi 
\ ie 
‘ j : 
i ‘\ 
ey P's 
- } y a 
a) 
whl 
f ' aN, 
24 tat i 
why 
EN i ee ets . 
. i ne = i » — Maes x Ades 
0 Ati : 4,4 
ad oo rug 7 
_ Air bs ; ; se - 
yan eae ah a ae one te 
*y ‘ : : 
ve 
j 
{ f 1s 
a | : ; 
wel , Ly tas 
‘4 
Ha '- 
hi ee | rm 
ha if ' ; 7 
i 7, Meee, P 
. ae! Mh et Tm Al 
Weenie 4h Ps i \ 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE* 


THE subject of the Inspiration of the Bible is one which has 
been much confused in recent discussion. He who, seeking to 
learn the truth, should gather about him the latest treatises, 
bearing such titles as, ‘ Inspiration, and other Lectures,” ‘“ In- 
spiration and the Bible,” “ What is Inspiration? ” “ How did 
God inspire the Bible?” “The Oracles of God?” ? — would 
find himself led by them in every conceivable direction at once. 
No wonder if he should stand stock-still in the midst of his 
would-be guides, confounded by the Babel of voices. The old 
formula, quot homines tot sententie, seems no longer adequate. 
Wherever five “ advanced thinkers ”’ assemble, at least six the- 
ories as to inspiration are likely to be ventilated. They differ 
in every conceivable point, or in every conceivable point save 
one. They agree that inspiration is less pervasive and less de- 
terminative than has heretofore been thought, or than is still 
thought in less enlightened circles. They agree that there is 
less of the truth of God and more of the error of man in the 
Bible than Christians have been wont to believe. They agree 
accordingly that the teaching of the Bible may be, in this, that, 
or the other, — here, there, or elsewhere, — safely neglected 
or openly repudiated. So soon as we turn to the constructive 
side, however, and ask wherein the inspiration of the Bible con- 
sists; how far it guarantees the trustworthiness of the Bible’s 
teaching; in what of its elements is the Bible a divinely safe- 
guarded guide to truth: the concurrence ends and hopeless dis- 
sension sets in. They agree only in their common destructive at- 
titude towards some higher view of the inspiration of the Bible, 
of the presence of which each one seems supremely conscious. 


1 A lecture. From “ Bibliotheca Sacra,” v. 51, 1894, pp. 614-640. Pub. also in 
“ King’s Own,” v. 6, Lond. 1895, pp. 791-794, 833-840, 926-933. 

2 Titles of recent treatises by Rooke, Horton, DeWitt, Smyth, and Sanday 
respectively. " 


51 


52 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


It is upon this fact that we need first of all to fix our atten- 
tion. It is not of the variegated hypotheses of his fellow-the- 
orizers, but of some high doctrine of inspiration, the common 
object of attack of them all, that each new theorizer on the 
subject of inspiration is especially conscious, as standing over 
against him, with reference to which he is to orient himself, 
and against the claims of which he is to defend his new hy- 
pothesis. Thus they themselves introduce us to the fact that 
over against the numberless discordant theories of inspiration 
which vex our time, there stands a well-defined church-doc- 
trine of inspiration. This church-doctrine of inspiration differs 
from the theories that would fain supplant it, in that it is not 
the invention nor the property of an individual, but the settled 
faith of the universal church of God; in that it is not the 
growth of yesterday, but the assured persuasion of the people 
of God from the first planting of the church until to-day; in 
that it is not a protean shape, varying its affirmations to fit 
every new change in the ever-shifting thought of men, but 
from the beginning has been the church’s constant and abiding 
conviction as to the divinity of the Scriptures committed to 
her keeping. It is certainly a most impressive fact, — this well- 
defined, aboriginal, stable doctrine of the church as to the na- 
ture and trustworthiness of the Scriptures of God, which con- 
fronts with its gentle but steady persistence of affirmation all 
the theories of inspiration which the restless energy of unbe- 
heving and half-believing speculation has been able to invent 
in this agitated nineteenth century of ours. Surely the seeker 
after the truth in the matter of the inspiration of the Bible 
may well take this church-doctrine as his starting-point. 

What this church-doctrine is, it is scarcely necessary mi- 
nutely to describe. It will suffice to remind ourselves that it 
looks upon the Bible as an oracular book, — as the Word of 
God in such a sense that whatever it says God says, — not a 
book, then, in which one may, by searching, find some word of 
God, but a book which may be frankly appealed to at any point 
with the assurance that whatever it may be found to say, that 
is the Word of God. We are all of us members in particular of 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE ah 


the body of Christ which we call the church: and the life of the 
church, and the faith of the church, and the thought of the 
church are our natural heritage. We know how, as Christian 
‘men, we approach this Holy Book, — how unquestioningly we 
receive its statements of fact, bow before its enunciations of 
duty, tremble before its threatenings, and rest upon its prom- 
ises. Or, if the subtle spirit of modern doubt has seeped some- 
what into our hearts, our memory will easily recall those hap- 
pier days when we stood a child at our Christian mother’s 
knee, with lisping lips following the words which her slow 
finger traced upon this open page, — words which were her 
support in every trial and, as she fondly trusted, were to be our 
guide throughout life. Mother church was speaking to us in 
that maternal voice, commending to us her vital faith in the 
Word of God. How often since then has it been our own lot, 
in our turn, to speak to others all the words of this life! As we 
sit in the midst of our pupils in the Sabbath-school, or in the 
centre of our circle at home, or perchance at some bedside of 
sickness or of death; or as we meet our fellow-man amid the 
busy work of the world, hemmed in by temptation or weighed 
down with care, and would fain put beneath him some firm 
support and stay: in what spirit do we turn to this Bible then? 
with what confidence do we commend its every word to those 
whom we would make partakers of its comfort or of its 
strength? In such scenes as these is revealed the vital faith of 
the people of God in the surety and trustworthiness of the 
Word of God. 

Nor do we need to do more than remind ourselves that this 
attitude of entire trust in every word of the Scriptures has been 
characteristic of the people of God from the very foundation of 
the church. Christendom has always reposed upon the belief 

that the utterances of this book are properly oracles of God. 
The whole body of Christian literature bears witness to this 
fact. We may trace its stream to its source, and everywhere it 
is vocal with a living faith in the divine trustworthiness of the 
Scriptures of God in every one of their affirmations. This is the 
murmur of the little rills of Christian speech which find their 


54. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


tenuous way through the parched heathen land of the early 
second century. And this is the mighty voice of the great river 
of Christian thought which sweeps through the ages, freighted 
with blessings for men. Dr. Sanday, in his recent Bampton 
Lectures on “ Inspiration ’” — in which, unfortunately, he does 
not teach the church-doctrine — is driven to admit that not 
only may “ testimonies to the general doctrine of inspiration ” 
from the earliest Fathers, “be multiplied to almost any ex- 
tent; but [that] there are some which go further and point to 
an inspiration which might be described as ‘ verbal’”’; “ nor 
does this idea,” he adds, ‘“ come in tentatively and by degrees, 
but almost from the very first.” * He might have spared the ad- 
verb “ almost.” The earliest writers know no other doctrine. If 
Origen asserts that the Holy Spirit was co-worker with the 
Evangelists in the composition of the Gospel, and that, there- 
fore, lapse of memory, error or falsehood was impossible to 
them,* and if Irenzeus, the pupil of Polycarp, claims for Chris- 
tians a clear knowledge that “‘ the Scriptures are perfect, seeing 
that they are spoken by God’s Word and his Spirit ”’;° no less 
does Polycarp, the pupil of John, consider the Scriptures the 
very voice of the Most High, and pronounce him the first-born 
of Satan, “ whosoever perverts these oracles of the Lord.” ® Nor 
do the later Fathers know a different doctrine. Augustine, for 
example, affirms that he defers to the canonical Scriptures 
alone among books with such reverence and honor that he most 
“firmly believes that no one of their authors has erred in any- 
thing, in writing.” * To precisely the same effect did the Re- 
formers believe and teach. Luther adopts these words of Augus- 
tine’s as his own, and declares that the whole of the Scriptures 
are to be ascribed to the Holy Ghost, and therefore cannot err.® 
Calvin demands that whatever is propounded in Scripture, 


3 Sanday, “ Inspiration,” p. 34. 

4 On Matt. xvi. 12 and Jno. vi. 18. 

5 Adv. Haer, 11. 28. 

6 Ep. ad Phil., cap. vii. 

7 Ep. ad Hier. Ixxxii. 3. 

8 “ Works” (St. Louis ed.), xix. 305; (Erlangen ed.), xxxvil. 11 and xxxviii. 
33. 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 535) 


“without exception,” shall be humbly received by us, — that 
the Scriptures as a whole shall be received by us with the same 
reverence which we give to God, “‘ because they have emanated 
from him alone, and are mixed with nothing human.” ® The 
saintly Rutherford, who speaks of the Scriptures as a more 
sure word than a direct oracle from heaven,’ and Baxter, who 
affrms that “all that the holy writers have recorded is true 
(and no falsehood in the Scriptures but what is from the errors 
of scribes and translators), ‘* hand down this supreme trust 
in the Scripture word to our own day — to our own Charles 
Hodge and Henry B. Smith, the one of whom asserts that the 
Bible “ gives us truth without error,” ” and the other, that “ all 
the books of the Scripture are equally inspired; . . . all alike 
are infallible in what they teach; . . . their assertions must be 
free from error.” ** Such testimonies are simply the formula- 
tion by the theologians of each age of the constant faith of 
Christians throughout all ages. 

If we would estimate at its full meaning the depth of this 
trust in the Scripture word, we should observe Christian men 
at work upon the text of Scripture. There is but one view-point 
which will account for or justify the minute and loving pains 
which have been expended upon-the text of Scripture, by the 
long line of commentators that has extended unbrokenly from 
the first Christian ages to our own. The allegorical interpreta- 
tion which rioted in the early days of the church was the 
daughter of reverence for the biblical word; a spurious daugh- 
ter you may think, but none the less undeniably a direct off- 
spring of the awe with which the sacred text was regarded as 
the utterances of God, and, as such, pregnant with inexhaust- 
ible significance. The patient and anxious care with which the 
Bible text is scrutinized today by scholars, of a different spirit 
no doubt from those old allegorizers, but of equal reverence for 

9 “Institutes,” i. 18; “Commentary on Romans,” xv. 4, and on 2 Tim. i. 
16. 

10 “ Free Disputation against Pretended Liberty of Conscience,” p. 373. 

11 “ Works,” xv. 65. 


12 Henry B. Smith, “ Sermon on Inspiration ” (Cincinnati ed.), p. 19. 
13 Charles Hodge, “ Syst. Theol.,” i. 163. 


56 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the text of Scripture, betrays the same fundamental view- 
point, — to which the Bible is the Word of God, every detail 
of the meaning of which is of inestimable preciousness. No 
doubt there have been men who have busied themselves with 


the interpretation of Scripture, who have not approached it in 


such a spirit or with such expectations. But it is not the Jow- 
etts, with their supercilious doubts whether Paul meant very 
much by what he said, who represent the spirit of Christian ex- 
position. This is represented rather by the Bengels, who count 
no labor wasted, in their efforts to distill from the very words of 
Holy Writ the honey which the Spirit has hidden in them for 
the comfort and the delight of the saints. It is represented 
rather by the Westcotts, who bear witness to their own experi- 
ence of the “sense of rest and confidence which grows firmer 
with increasing knowledge,” as their patient investigation has 
dug deeper and deeper for the treasures hid in the words and 
clauses and sentences of the Epistles of John,’* — to the sure 
conviction which forty years of study of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews has brought them that ‘‘ we come nearer to the mean- 
ing of Scripture by the closest attention to the subtleties and 
minute variations of words and order.” It was a just remark of 
one of the wisest men I ever knew, Dr. Wistar Hodge, that this 
is “ a high testimony to verbal inspiration.” *° 

Of course the church has not failed to bring this, her vital 
faith in the divine trustworthiness of the Scripture word, to 
formal expression in her solemn creeds. The simple faith of the 
Christian people is also the confessional doctrine of the Chris- 
tian churches. The assumption of the divine authority of the 
scriptural teaching underlies all the credal statements of the 
church; all of which are formally based upon the Scriptures. 
And from the beginning, it finds more or less full expression in 
them. Already, in some of the formulas of faith which underlie 
the Apostles’ Creed itself, we meet with the phrase “ according 
to the Scriptures” as validating the items of belief; while in 
the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, amid the meagre clauses 


14 B. F. Westcott, “‘ The Epistles of St. John,” p. vi. 
15 C, Wistar Hodge, “ Presbyterian and Reformed Review,” ii. 330. 


: 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 57 


outlining only what is essential to the doctrine of the Holy 
Spirit, place is given to the declaration that He is to be found 
speaking in the prophets — “ who spake by the prophets.” It 
was in conscious dependence upon the immemorial teaching of 
the church that the Council of Trent defined it as of faith in 
the Church of Rome, that God is the author of Scripture, — a 
declaration which has been repeated in our own day by the 
Vatican Council, with such full explanations as are included in 
these rich words: “The church holds” the books of the Old 
and New Testaments, “to be sacred and canonical, not be- 
cause, having been carefully composed by mere human indus- 
try, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor 
merely because they contain revelation with no admixture of 
error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of 
the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author.’ Needless to 
say that a no less firm conviction of the absolute authority of 
Scripture underlies all the Protestant creeds. Before all else, 
Protestantism is, in its very essence, an appeal from all other 
authority to the divine authority of Holy Scripture. The Augs- 
burg. Confession, the first Protestant creed, is, therefore, com- 
mended to consideration, only on the ground that it is “ drawn 
from the Holy Scriptures and the pure word of God.” The 
later Lutheran creeds, and especially the Reformed creeds, 
grow progressively more explicit.,It is our special felicity, that 
as Reformed Christians, and heirs of the richest and fullest 
formulation of Reformed thought, we possess in that precious 
' heritage, the Westminster Confession, the most complete, the 
most admirable, the most perfect statement of the essential 
Christian doctrine of Holy Scripture which has ever been 
formed by man. Here the vital faith of the church is brought to 
full expression; the Scriptures are declared to be the word of 
God in such a sense that God is their author, and they, because 
immediately inspired by God, are of infallible truth and divine 
authority, and are to be believed to be true by the Christian 
man, in whatsoever is revealed in them, for the authority of 
God himself speaking therein. 

Thus, in every way possible, the church has borne her testi- 


58 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


mony from the beginning, and still in our day, to her faith in 
the divine trustworthiness of her Scriptures, in all their affir- 
mations of whatever kind. At no age has it been possible for 
men to express without rebuke the faintest doubt as to the 
absolute trustworthiness of their least declaration. Tertul¥ 
lian, writing at the opening of the third century, suggests, with 
evident hesitation and timidity, that Paul’s language in the 
seventh chapter of First Corinthians may be intended to dis- 
tinguish, in his remarks on marriage and divorce, between mat- 
ters of divine commandment and of human arrangement. Dr. 
Sanday is obliged to comment on his language: “ Any seeming 
depreciation of Scripture was as unpopular even then as it is 
now.” *® The church has always believed her Scriptures to be 
the book of God, of which God was in such a sense the author 
that every one of its affirmations of whatever kind is to be 
esteemed as the utterance of God, of infallible truth and 
authority. 

In the whole history of the church there have been but two 
movements of thought, tending to a lower conception of the 
inspiration and authority of Scripture, which have attained 
sufficient proportions to bring them into view in an historical 
sketch. 

(1) The first of these may be called the Rationalistic view. 
Its characteristic feature is an effort to distinguish between 
inspired and uninspired elements within the Scriptures. With 
forerunners among the Humanists, this mode of thought was 
introduced by the Socinians, and taken up by the Syncretists 
in Germany, the Remonstrants in Holland, and the Jesuits in 
the Church of Rome. In the great life-and-death struggle of 
the eighteenth century it obtained great vogue among the de- 
fenders of supernatural religion, in their desperate efforts to 
save what was of even more importance, — just as a hard- 
pressed army may yield to the foe many an outpost which 
justly belongs to it, in the effort to save the citadel. In the nine- 
teenth century it has retained a strong hold, especially upon 
apologetical writers, chiefly in the three forms which affirm re- 


16 Sanday, “ Inspiration,’”’p. 42 (note). 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 59 


spectively that only the mysteriés of the faith are inspired, i. e. 
things undiscoverable by.unaided reason, — that the Bible is 
inspired only in matters of faith and practice, — and that the 
Bible is inspired only in its thoughts or concepts, not in its 
words. But although this legacy from the rationalism of an evil 
time still makes its appearance in the pages of many theologi- 
cal writers, and has no doubt affected the faith of a consider- 
able number of Christians, it has failed to supplant in either 
the creeds of the church or the hearts of the people the church- 
doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Bible, i. e. the doc- 
trine that the Bible is inspired not in part but fully, in all its 
_elements alike, — things discoverable by reason as well as mys- 
teries, matters of history and science as well as of faith and 
practice, words as well as thoughts. 

(2) The second of the lowered views of inspiration may be 
called the Mystical view. Its characteristic conception is that 
the Christian man has something within himself, — call it en- 
lightened reason, spiritual insight, the Christian consciousness, 
the witness of the Spirit, or call it what you will, — to the test 
of which every “ external revelation” is to be subjected, and 
according to the decision of which are the contents of the Bible 
to be valued. Very varied forms have been taken by this con- 
ception; and more or less expression has been given to it, in 
one form or another, in every age. In its extremer manifesta- 
tions, it has formerly tended to sever itself from the main 
stream of Christian thought and even to form separated sects. 
But in our own century, through the great genius of Schleier- 
macher it has broken in upon the church like a flood, and 
washed into every corner of the Protestant world. As a conse- 
quence, we find men everywhere who desire to acknowledge as 
from God only such Scripture as “ finds them,’ — who cast the 
clear objective enunciation of God’s will to the mercy of the 
currents of thought and feeling which sweep up and down in 
their own souls, — who “ persist’? sometimes, to use a sharp 
but sadly true phrase of Robert Alfred Vaughan’s, “in their 
conceited rejection of the light without until they have turned 
into darkness their light within.” We grieve over the inroads 


60 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


which this essentially naturalistic mode of thought has made 
in the Christian thinking of the day. But great and deplorable 
as they have been, they have not been so extensive as to sup- 
plant the church-doctrine of the absolute authority of the ob- 
jective revelation of God in his Word, in either the creeds of 
the church, or the hearts of the people. Despite these attempts 
to introduce lowered conceptions, the doctrine of the plenary 
inspiration of the Scriptures, which looks upon them as an 
oracular book, in all its parts and elements, alike, of God, trust- 
worthy in all its affirmations of every kind, remains to-day, as 
it has always been, the vital faith of the people of God, and the 
formal teaching of the organized church. 


The more we contemplate this church-doctrine, the more 
pressing becomes the question of what account we are to give 
of it, —its origin and persistence. How shall we account for 
the immediate adoption of so developed a doctrine of inspira- 
tion in the very infancy of the church, and for the tenacious 
hold which the church has kept upon it through so many ages? 
The account is simple enough, and capable of inclusion in a 
single sentence: this is the doctrine of inspiration which was 
held by the writers of the New Testament and by Jesus as re- 
ported in the Gospels. It is this simple fact that has com- 
mended it to the church of all ages as the true doctrine; and in 
it we may surely recognize an even more impressive fact than 
that of the existence of a stable, abiding church-doctrine stand- 
ing over against the many theories of the day,—the fact, 
namely, that this church-doctrine of inspiration was the Bible 
doctrine before it was the church-doctrine, and is the church- 
doctrine only because it is the Bible doctrine. It is upon this 
fact that we should now fix our attention. 

In the limited space at our disposal we need not attempt 
anything like a detailed proof that the church-doctrine of the 
plenary inspiration of the Bible is the Bible’s own doctrine of 
inspiration. And this especially for three very obvious rea- 
sons: 

First, because it cannot be necessary to prove this to our- 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 61 


selves. We have the Bible in our hands, and we are accustomed 
to read it. It is enough for us to ask ourselves how the apostles 
and our Lord, as represented in its pages, conceived of what 
they called “ the Scriptures,” for the answer to come at once to 
our minds. As readers of the New Testament, we know that to 
the men of the New Testament “the Scriptures” were the 
Word of God which could not be broken, i. e. whose every word 
was trustworthy; and that a simple “ It is written ” was there- 
fore to them the end of all strife. The proof of this is pervasive 
and level to the apprehension of every reader. It would be an 
insult to our intelligence were we to presume that we had not 
observed it, or could not apprehend its meaning. 

Secondly, it is not necessary to prove that the New Testa- 
ment regards “Scripture” as the mere Word of God, in the 
highest and most rigid sense, to modern biblical scholarship. 
Among untrammelled students of the Bible, it is practically 
a matter of common consent that the writers of the New Tes- 
tament books looked upon what they called “Scripture” as 
divinely safeguarded in even its verbal expression, and as di- 
vinely trustworthy in all its parts, in all its elements, and in 
all its affirmations of whatever kind. This is, of course, the 
judgment of all those who have adopted this doctrine as their 
own, because they apprehend it to be the biblical doctrine. It 
is also the judgment of all those who can bring themselves to 
refuse a doctrine which they yet perceive to be a biblical doc- 
trine. Whether we appeal, among men of this class, to such 
students of a more evangelical tendency, as Tholuck, Rothe, 
Farrar, Sanday, or to such extremer writers as Riehm, Reuss, 
Pfleiderer, Keunen, they will agree in telling us that the high 
doctrine of inspiration which we have called the church-doc- 
trine was held by the writers of the New Testament. This 1s 
common ground between believing and unbelieving students 
of the Bible, and needs, therefore, no new demonstration in the 
forum of scholarship. Let us pause here, therefore, only long 
enough to allow Hermann Schultz, surely a fair example of the 
“advanced ” school, to tell us what is the conclusion in this 
matter of the strictest and coldest exegetical science. “The 


62 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Book of the Law,” he tells us, “seemed already to the later 
poets of the Old Testament, the ‘Word of God.’ The post- 
canonical books of Israel regard the Law and the Prophets in 
this manner. And for the men of the New Testament, the Holy 
Scriptures of their people are already God’s word in which God 
himself speaks.” This view, which looked upon the scriptural 
books as verbally inspired, he adds, was the ruling one in the 
time of Christ, was shared by all the New Testament men, and 
by Christ himself, as a pious conception, and was expressly 
taught by the more scholastic writers among them.*’ It is 
hardly necessary to prove what is so frankly confessed. 

The third reason why it is not necessary to occupy our time 
with a formal proof that the Bible does teach this doctrine, 
arises from the circumstance that even those who seek to rid 
themselves of the pressure of this fact upon them, are observed 
to be unable to prosecute their argument without an implied 
admission of it as a fact. This is true, for example, of Dr. San- 
day’s endeavors to meet the appeal of the church to our Lord’s 
authority in defence of the doctrine of plenary inspiration.” 
He admits that the one support which has been sought by the 
church of all ages for its high doctrine has been the “ extent to 
which it was recognized in the sayings of Christ himself.” As 
over against this he begins by suggesting “ that, whatever view 
our Lord himself entertained as to the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, the record of his words has certainly come down to 
us through the medium of persons who shared the current view 
on the subject.” This surely amounts to a full admission that 
the writers of the New Testament at least, held and taught the 
obnoxious doctrine. He ends with the remark that “ when de- 
ductions have been made... there still remains evidence 
enough that our Lord, while on earth did use the common lan- 
guage of his contemporaries in regard to the Old Testament.” 
This surely amounts to a full admission that Christ as well as 
his reporters taught the obnoxious doctrine. 

This will be found to be a typical case. Every attempt to 


17 Hermann Schultz, “ Grundriss d. Evang. Dogmatik,” p. 7. 
18 “ Inspiration,” p. 393 seq. 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 63 


escape from the authority of the New Testament enunciation 
of the doctrine of plenary inspiration, in the nature of the case 
begins by admitting that this is, in very fact, the New Testa- 
ment doctrine. Shall we follow Dr. Sanday, and appeal from 
the apostles to Christ, and then call in the idea of kenosis, and 
affirm that in the days of his flesh, Christ did not speak out 
of the fulness and purity of his divine knowledge, but on be- 
coming man had shrunk to man’s capacity, and in such mat- 
ters as this was limited in his conceptions by the knowledge 
and opinions current in his day and generation? In so saying, 
we admit, as has already been pointed out, not only that the 
apostles taught this high doctrine of inspiration, but also that 
Christ too, In whatever humiliation he did it, yet actually 
taught the same. Shall we then take refuge in the idea of ac- 
commodation, and explain that, in so speaking of the Scrip- 
tures, Christ and his apostles did not intend to teach the doc- 
trine of inspiration implicated, but merely adopted, as a matter 
of convenience, the current language, as to Scripture, of the 
time? In so speaking, also, we admit that the actual language 
of Christ and his apostles expresses that high view of inspira- 
tion which was confessedly the current view of the day — 
whether as a matter of convenience or as a matter of truth, the 
Christian consciousness may be safely left to decide. Shall we 
then remind ourselves that Jesus himself committed nothing 
to writing, and appeal to the uncertainties which are accus- 
tomed to attend the record of teaching at second-hand? Thus, 
too, we allow that the words of Christ as transmitted to us do 
teach the obnoxious doctrine. Are we, then, to fall back upon 
the observation that the doctrine of plenary inspiration is not 
taught with equal plainness in every part of the Bible, but be- 
comes clear only in the later Old Testament books, and is not 
explicitly enunciated except in the more scholastic of the New 
Testament books? In this, too, we admit that it is taught in the 
Scriptures; while the fact that it is taught not all at once, but 
with progressive clearness and fulness, is accordant with the 
nature of the Bible as a book written in the process of the ages 
and progressively developing the truth. Then, shall we affirm 


64. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


that our doctrine of inspiration is not to be derived solely from 
the teachings of the Bible, but from its teachings and phenom- 
ena in conjunction; and so call in what we deem the phenom- 
ena of the Bible to modify its teaching? Do we not see that the 
very suggestion of this process admits that the teaching of the 
Bible, when taken alone, i. e., in its purity and just as it is, gives 
us the unwelcome doctrine? Shall we, then, take counsel of 
desperation and assert that all appeal to the teaching of the 
Scriptures themselves in testimony to their own inspiration 1s 
an argument in a circle, appealing to their inspiration to vali- 
date their inspiration? Even this desperately illogical shift to 
be rid of the scriptural doctrine of inspiration, obviously in- 
volves the confession that this is the scriptural doctrine. No, 
the issue is not, What does the Bible teach? but, Is what the 
Bible teaches true? And it is amazing that any or all of such 
expedients can blind the eyes of any one to the stringency of 
this issue. 

Even a detailed attempt to explain away the texts which 
teach the doctrine of the plenary inspiration and unvarying 
truth of Scripture, involves the admission that in their obvious 
meaning such texts teach the doctrine which it is sought to ex- 
plain away. And think of explaining away the texts which in- 
culcate the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures! The effort to do so is founded upon an inexplicably odd 
misapprehension — the misapprehension that the Bible wit- 
nesses to its plenary inspiration only in a text here and there: 
texts of exceptional clearness alone probably being in mind, — 
such as our Saviour’s declaration that the Scriptures cannot be 
broken; or Paul’s, that every scripture is inspired of God; or 
Peter’s, that the men of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost. Such texts, no doubt, do teach the doctrine of 
plenary inspiration, and are sadly in need of explaining away 
at the hands of those who will not believe this doctrine. As, in- 
deed, we may learn from Dr. Sanday’s treatment of one of 
them, that in which our Lord declares that the Scriptures can- 
not be broken. Dr. Sanday can only speak of this as “ a passage 
of peculiar strangeness and difficulty ”; ‘ because,” he tells us, 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 65 


‘it seems to mean that the dicta of Scripture, even where we 
should naturally take them as figurative, must be true.” Need- 
less to say that the only “strangeness and difficulty ” in the 
text arises from the unwillingness of the commentator to ap- 
proach the Scriptures with the simple trust in their detailed 
divine trustworthiness and authority which characterized all 
our Lord’s dealings with them. 

But no grosser misconception could be conceived than that 
the Scriptures bear witness to their own plenary inspiration in 
these outstanding texts alone. These are but the culminating 
passages of a pervasive testimony to the divine character of 
Scripture, which fills the whole New Testament; and which in- 
cludes not only such direct assertions of divinity and infallibil- 
ity for Scripture as these, but, along with them, an endless 
variety of expressions of confidence in, and phenomena of use 
of, Scripture which are irresistible in their teaching when it is 
once fairly apprehended. The induction must be broad enough 
to embrace, and give their full weight to, a great variety of 
such facts as these: the lofty titles which are given to Scrip- 
ture, and by which it is cited, such as “ Scripture,” “ the Scrip- 
tures,’ even that almost awful title, “ the Oracles of God”’; the 
significant formule by which it is quoted, ‘“ It is written,” “ It 
is spoken,” “ It says,” “God says”; such modes of adducing 
it as betray that to the writer “Scripture says” is equivalent 
to “ God says,” and even its narrative parts are conceived as 
direct utterances of God; the attribution to Scripture, as such, 
of divine qualities and acts, as in such phrases as “ the Scrip- 
tures foresaw ”; the ascription of the Scriptures, in whole or in 
their several parts as occasionally adduced, to the Holy Spirit 
as their author, while the human writers are treated as merely 
his media of expression; the reverence and trust shown, and 
the significance and authority ascribed, to the very words of 
Scripture; and the general attitude of entire subjection to 
every declaration of Scripture of whatever kind, which charac- 
terizes every line of the New Testament. The effort to explain 
away the Bible’s witness to its plenary inspiration reminds one 
of a man standing safely in his laboratory and elaborately ex- 


66 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


pounding — possibly by the aid of diagrams and mathematical 
formule —how every stone in an avalanche has a defined 
pathway and may easily be dodged by one of some presence of 
mind. We may fancy such an elaborate trifler’s triumph as he 
would analyze the avalanche into its constituent stones, and 
demonstrate of stone after stone that its pathway is definite, 
limited, and may easily be avoided. But avalanches, unfortu- 
nately, do not come upon us, stone by stone, one at a time, 
courteously leaving us opportunity to withdraw from the path- 
way of each in turn: but all at once, in a roaring mass of de- 
struction. Just so we may explain away a text or two which 
teach plenary inspiration, to our own closet satisfaction, deal- 
ing with them each without reference to its relation to the 
others: but these texts of ours, again, unfortunately do not 
come upon us in this artificial isolation; neither are they few 
in number. There are scores, hundreds, of them: and they come 
bursting upon us in one solid mass. Explain them away’? We 
should have to explain away the whole New Testament. What 
a pity it is that we cannot see and feel the avalanche of texts 
beneath which we may lie hopelessly buried, as clearly as we 
may see and feel an avalanche of stones! Let us, however, but 
open our eyes to the variety and pervasiveness of the New Tes- 
tament witness to its high estimate of Scripture, and we shall 
no longer wonder that modern scholarship finds itself com- 
pelled to allow that the Christian church has read her records 
correctly, and that the church-doctrine of inspiration is simply 
a transcript of the biblical doctrine; nor shall we any longer 
wonder that the church, receiving these Scriptures as her au- 
thoritative teacher of doctrine, adopted in the very beginnings 
of her life, the doctrine of plenary inspiration, and has held it 
with a tenacity that knows no wavering, until the present hour. 

But, we may be reminded, the church has not held with 
such tenacity to all doctrines taught in the Bible. How are we 
to account, then, for the singular constancy of its confession of 
the Bible’s doctrine of inspiration? The account to be given is 
again simple, and capable of being expressed in a single sen- 
tence. It is due to an instinctive feeling in the church, that the 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 67 


trustworthiness of the Scriptures lies at the foundation of trust 
in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore funda- 
mental to the Christian hope and life. It is due to the church’s 
instinct that the validity of her teaching of doctrine as the 
truth of God, — to the Christian’s instinct that the validity of 
his hope in the several promises of the gospel, — rests on the 
trustworthiness of the Bible as a record of God’s dealings and 
purposes with men. 

Individuals may call in question the soundness of these in- 
stinctive judgments. And, indeed, there is a sense in which it 
would not be true to say that the truth of Christian teaching 
and the foundations of faith are suspended upon the doctrine 
of plenary inspiration, or upon any doctrine of inspiration 
whatever. They rest rather upon the previous fact of revela- 
tion: and it is important to keep ourselves reminded that the 
supernatural origin and contents of Christianity, not only may 
be vindicated apart from any question of the inspiration of the 
record, but, in point of fact, always are vindicated prior to any 
question of the inspiration of the record. We cannot raise the 
question whether God has given us an absolutely trustworthy 
record of the supernatural facts and teachings of Christianity, 
before we are assured that there are supernatural facts and 
teachings to be recorded. The fact that Christianity is a super- 
natural religion and the nature of Christianity as a supernatu- 
ral religion, are matters of history; and are independent of 
any, and of every, theory of inspiration. 

But this line of remark is of more importance to the Chris- 
tian apologist than to the Christian believer, as such; and the 
instinct of the church that the validity of her teaching, and 
the instinct of the Christian that the validity of his hope, are 
bound up with the trustworthiness of the Bible, is a perfectly 
sound one. This for three reasons: 

First, because the average Christian man is not and cannot 
be a fully furnished historical scholar. If faith in Christ is to be 
always and only the product of a thorough historical investiga- 
tion into the origins of Christianity, there would certainly be 
few who could venture to preach Christ and him crucified with 


68 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


entire confidence; there would certainly be few who would be 
able to trust their all to him with entire security. The Christian 
scholar desires, and, thank God, is able to supply, a thoroughly 
trustworthy historical vindication of supernatural Christian- 
ity. But the Christian teacher desires, and, thank God, is able 
to lay his hands upon, a thoroughly trustworthy record of su- 
pernatural Christianity; and the Christian man requires, and, 
thank God, has, a thoroughly trustworthy Bible to which he 
can go directly and at once in every time of need. Though, 
then, in the abstract, we may say that the condition of the 
validity of the Christian teaching and of the Christian hope, js 
no more than the fact of the supernaturalism of Christianity, 
historically vindicated; practically we must say that the con- 
dition of the persistence of Christianity as a religion for the 
people, is the entire trustworthiness of the Scriptures as the 
record of the supernatural revelation which Christianity is. 

Secondly, the merely historical vindication of the super- 
natural origin and contents of Christianity, while thorough and 
complete for Christianity as a whole, and for all the main facts 
and doctrines which enter into it, does not by itself supply a 
firm basis of trust for all the details of teaching and all the 
items of promise upon which the Christian man would fain 
lean. Christianity would be given to us; but it would be given 
to us, not in the exact form or in all the fulness with which God 
gave it to his needy children through his servants, the prophets, 
and through his Son and his apostles; but with the marks of 
human misapprehension, exaggeration, and minimizing upon 
it, and of whatever attrition may have been wrought upon it 
by its passage to us through the ages. That the church may 
have unsullied assurance in the details of its teaching, — that 
the Christian man may have unshaken confidence in the details 
of the promises to which he trusts,— they need, and they 
know that they need, a thoroughly trustworthy Word of God 
in which God himself speaks directly to them all the words of 
this life. 

Thirdly, in the circumstances of the present case, we can- 
not fall back from trust in the Bible upon trust in the historical 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE 69 


vindication of Christianity as a revelation from God, inasmuch 
as, since Christ and his apostles are historically shown to have 
taught the plenary inspiration of the Bible, the credit of the 
previous fact of revelation — even of the supreme revelation 
in Christ Jesus — is implicated in the truth of the doctrine of 
plenary inspiration. The historical vindication of Christianity 
as a revelation from God, vindicates as the truth of God all the 
contents of that revelation; and, among these contents, vindi- 
cates, as divinely true, the teaching of Christ and his apostles, 
that the Scriptures are the very Word of God, to be trusted as 
such in all the details of their teaching and promises. The in- 
stinct of the church is perfectly sound, therefore, when she 
clings to the trustworthiness of the Bible, as lying at the foun- 
dation of her teaching and her faith. 

Much less can she be shaken from this instinctive convic- 
tion by the representations of individual thinkers who go yet a 
step further, and, refusing to pin their faith either to the Bible 
or to history, affirm that “ the essence of Christianity ” is se- 
curely intrenched in the subjective feelings of man, either as 
such, or as Christian man taught by the Holy Ghost; and 
therefore that there is by no means needed an infallible objec- 
tive rule of faith in order to propagate or preserve Christian 
truth in the world. It is unnecessary to say that “ the essence 
of Christianity ” as conceived by these individuals, includes 
little that is characteristic of Christian doctrine, life, or hope, 
as distinct from what is taught by other religions or philoso- 
phies. And it is perhaps equally unnecessary to remind our- 
selves that such individuals, having gone so far, tend to take a 
further step still, and to discard the records which they thus 
judge to be unnecessary. Thus, there may be found even men 
still professing historical Christianity, who reason themselves 
into the conclusion that “in the nature of the case, no external 
authority can possibly be absolute in regard to spiritual 
truth ”’; ® just as men have been known to reason themselves 
into the conclusion that the external world has no objective 
reality and is naught but the projection of their own faculties. 


19 Professor W. F. Adeney, “ Faith and Criticism,” p. 90. 


70 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


But as in the one case, so in the other, the common sense of 
men recoils from such subtleties; and it remains the profound 
persuasion of the Christian heart that without such an “ exter- 
nal authority ” as a thoroughly trustworthy Bible, the soul is 
left without sure ground for a proper knowledge of itself, its 
condition, and its need, or for a proper knowledge of God’s pro- 
visions of mercy for it and his promises of grace to it, — with- 
out sure ground, in a word, for its faith and hope. Adolphe 
Monod gives voice to no more than the common Christian con- 
viction, when he declares that, “ If faith has not for its basis a 
testimony of God to which we must submit, as to an authority 
exterior to our personal judgment, and independent of it, then 
faith is no faith.” °° “ The more I study the Scriptures, the ex- 
ample of Christ, and of the apostles, and the history of my own 
heart,’ he adds, ‘‘ the more I am convinced, that a testimony 
of God, placed without us and above us, exempt from all inter- 
mixture of sin and error which belong to a fallen race, and re- 
ceived with submission on the sole authority of God, is the true 
basis of faith.” *1 

It is doubtless the profound and ineradicable conviction, so 
expressed, of the need of an infallible Bible, if men are to seek 
and find salvation in God’s announced purpose of grace, and 
peace and comfort in his past dealings with his people, that has 
operated to keep the formulas of the churches and the hearts of 
the people of God, through so many ages, true to the Bible 
doctrine of plenary inspiration. In that doctrine men have 
found what their hearts have told them was the indispensable 
safeguard of a sure word of God to them, — a word of God to 
which they could resort with confidence in every time of need, 
to which they could appeal for guidance in every difficulty, for 
comfort in every sorrow, for instruction in every perplexity; 
on whose “ Thus saith the Lord ” they could safely rest all their 
aspirations and all their hopes. Such a Word of God, each one 
of us knows he needs, — not a Word of God that speaks to us 
only through the medium of our fellow-men, men of like pas- 
sions and weaknesses with ourselves, so that we have to feel 


20 “ Tife of Adolphe Monod,” p. 224. 21 Ihid., p. 357. 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE Fl 


our way back to God’s word through the church, through tradi- 
tion, or through the apostles, standing between us and God; 
but a Word of God in which God speaks directly to each of our 
souls. Such a Word of God, Christ and his apostles offer us, 
when they give us the Scriptures, not as man’s report to us of 
what God says, but as the very Word of God itself, spoken by 
God himself through human lips and pens. Of such a precious 
possession, given to her by such hands, the church will not 
lightly permit herself to be deprived. Thus the church’s sense 
of her need of an absolutely infallible Bible, has co-operated 
with her reverence for the teaching of the Bible to keep her 
true, in all ages, to the Bible doctrine of plenary inspiration. 
What, indeed, would the church be — what would we, as 
Christian men, be — without our inspired Bible? Many of us 
have, no doubt, read Jean Paul Richter’s vision of a dead 
Christ, and have shuddered at his pictures of the woe of a world 
from which its Christ has been stolen away. It would be a 
theme worthy of some like genius to portray for us the vision of 
a dead Bible, — the vision of what this world of ours would be, 
had there been no living Word of God cast into its troubled 
waters with its voice of power, crying, ‘“ Peace! Be still! ” 
What does this Christian world of ours not owe to this Bible! 
And to this Bible conceived, not as a part of the world’s litera- 
ture, — the literary product of the earliest years of the church; 
not as a book in which, by searching, we may find God and per- 
chance somewhat of God’s will: but as the very Word of God, 
instinct with divine life from the “ In the beginning ” of Gene- 
sis to the “ Amen ” of the Apocalypse, — breathed into by God, 
and breathing out God to every devout reader. It is because 
men have so thought of it that it has proved a leaven to leaven 
the whole lump of the world. We do not half realize what we 
owe to this book, thus trusted by men. We can never fully 
realize it. For we can never even in thought unravel from this 
complex web of modern civilization, all the threads from the 
Bible which have been woven into it, throughout the whole 
past, and now enter into its very fabric. And, thank God, much 
less can we ever untwine them in fact, and separate our mod- 


Lh REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


“ern life from all those Bible influences by which alone it is 
blessed, and sweetened, and made a life which men may live. 
Dr. Gardiner Spring published, years ago, a series of lectures in 
which he sought to take some account of the world’s obliga- 
tions to the Bible, — tracing in turn the services it has ren- 
dered to religion, to morals, to social institutions, to civil and 
religious liberty, to the freedom of slaves, to the emancipation 
of woman and the sweetening of domestic life, to public and 
private beneficence, to literary and scientific progress, and the 
like.*? And Adolphe Monod, in his own inimitable style, has 
done something to awaken us as individuals to what we owe to 
a fully trusted Bible, in the development of our character and 
religious life.** In such matters, however, we can trust our 1m- 
aginations better than our words, to remind us of the immen- 
sity of our debt. 

Let it suffice to say that to a plenarily inspired Bible, hum- 
bly trusted as such, we actually, and as a matter of fact, owe all 
that has blessed our lives with hopes of an immortality of bliss, 
and with the present fruition of the love of God in Christ. This 
is not an exaggeration. We may say that without a Bible we 
might have had Christ and all that he stands for to our souls. 
Let us not say that this might not have been possible. But 
neither let us forget that, in point of fact, it is to the Bible that 
we owe it that we know Christ and are found in him. And may 
it not be fairly doubted whether you and I, — however it may 
have been with others, — would have had Christ had there 
been no Bible? We must not at any rate forget those nineteen 
Christian centuries which stretch between us and Christ, whose 
Christian light we would do much to blot out and sink in a 
dreadful darkness if we could blot out the Bible. Even with the 
Bible, and all that had come from the Bible to form Christian 
lives and inform a Christian literature, after a millennium and 
a half the darkness had grown so deep that a Reformation was 
necessary if Christian truth was to persist, —a Luther was 
necessary, raised up by God to rediscover the Bible and give it 


22 Gardiner Spring, “ Obligations of the World to the Bible.” (New York: 
M. W. Dodd. 1855.) 
23 Adolphe Monod, “ L’Inspiration prouvée par ses Giuvres.” 


THE INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE te 


back to man. Suppose there had been no Bible for Luther to 
rediscover, and on the lines of which to refound the church, — 
and no Bible in the hearts of God’s saints and in the pages of 
Christian literature, persisting through those darker ages to 
prepare a Luther to rediscover it? Though Christ had come 
into the world and had lived and died for us, might it not be 
to us, — you and me, I mean, who are not learned historians 
but simple men and women, — might it not be to us as though 
he had not been? Or, if some faint echo of a Son of God offer- 
ing salvation to men could still be faintly heard even by such 
dull ears as ours, sounding down the ages, who would have ears 
to catch the fulness of the message of free grace which he 
brought into the world? who could assure our doubting souls 
that it was not all a pleasant dream? who could cleanse the 
message from the ever-gathering corruptions of the multiplying 
years? No: whatever might possibly have been had there been 
no Bible, it is actually to the Bible that you and I owe it that 
we have a Christ, —a Christ to love, to trust and to follow, a 
Christ without us the ground of our salvation, a Christ within 
us the hope of glory. in 

Our effort has been to bring clearly out what seem to be | 
three very impressive facts regarding the plenary inspiration 
of the Scriptures, — the facts, namely, that this doctrine has 
always been, and is still, the church-doctrine of inspiration, as 
well the vital faith of the people of God as the formulated 
teaching of the official creeds; that it is undeniably the doc- 
trine of inspiration held by Christ and his apostles, and com- 
mended to us as true by all the authority which we will allow 
to attach to their teaching; and that it is the foundation of our 
Christian thought and life, without which we could not, or 
could only with difficulty, maintain the confidence of our faith 
and the surety of our hope. On such grounds as these is not this 
doctrine commended to us as true? 

But, it may be said, there are difficulties in the way. Of 
course there are. There are difficulties in the way of believing 
anything. There are difficulties in the way of believing that 
God is, or that Jesus Christ is God’s Son who came into the 
world to save sinners. There are difficulties in the way of be- 


74 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


lieving that we ourselves really exist, or that anything has real 
existence besides ourselves. When men give their undivided 
attention to these difficulties, they may become, and they have 
become, so perplexed in mind, that they have felt unable to be- 
lieve that God is, or that they themselves exist, or that there is 
any external world without themselves. It would be a strange - 
thing if it might not so fare with plenary inspiration also. Dif* 
ficulties? Of course there are difficulties. It is nothing to the 
purpose to point out this fact. Dr. J. Oswald Dykes says with 
admirable truth: “If men must have a reconciliation for all 
conflicting truths before they will believe any; if they must 
see how the promises of God are to be fulfilled before they will 
obey his commands; if duty is to hang upon the satisfying of 
the understanding, instead of the submission of the will, — 
then the greater number of us will find the road of faith and 
the road of duty blocked at the outset.” ** These wise words 
have their application also to our present subject. The ques- 
tion is not, whether the doctrine of plenary inspiration has dif- 
ficulties to face. The question is, whether these difficulties are 
greater than the difficulty of believing that the whole church 
of God from the beginning has been deceived in her estimate 
of the Scriptures committed to her charge — are greater than 
the difficulty of believing that the whole college of the apostles, 
yes and Christ himself at their head, were themselves deceived 
as to the nature of those Scriptures which they gave the church 
as its precious possession, and have deceived with them twenty 
Christian centuries, and are likely to deceive twenty more be- 
fore our boasted advancing light has corrected their error, — 
are greater than the difficulty of believing that we have no sure 
foundation for our faith and no certain warrant for our trust 
in Christ for salvation. We believe this doctrine of the plenary 
inspiration of the Scriptures primarily because it is the doc- 
trine which Christ and his apostles believed, and which they 
have taught us. It may sometimes seem difficult to take our 
stand frankly by the side of Christ and his apostles. It will 
always be found safe. 


24 J. Oswald Dykes, “ Abraham,” etc. (1877), p. 257. 


IV 
_ THE BIBLICAL IDEA OF INSPIRATION 








i 
a6 


Mi 
if 1 
yn 
fark) 


INSPIRATION * 


THE word “ inspire ” and its derivatives seem to have come 
into Middle English from the French, and have been employed 
from the first (early in the fourteenth century) in a consider- 
able number of significations, physical and metaphorical, secu- 
lar and religious. The derivatives have been multiplied and 
their applications extended during the procession of the years, 
until they have acquired a very wide and varied use. Under- 
lying all their use, however, is the constant implication of an 
influence from without, producing in its object movements and 
effects beyond its native, or at least its ordinary powers. The 
noun “ inspiration,” although already in use in the fourteenth 
century, seems not to occur in any but a theological sense until 
late in the sixteenth century. The specifically theological sense 
of all these terms is governed, of course, by their usage in Latin 
theology; and this rests ultimately on their employment in the 
Latin Bible. In the Vulgate Latin Bible the verb inspiro (Gen. 
Me, \Wisds xy. 11; Beclussiv. 12:2 Pim Jin. 16; 2 Pet.i, 21) 
and the noun inspiratio (2 Sam. xxii. 16; Job xxxii. 8; Ps. xvu. 
16; Acts xvil. 25) both occur four or five times in somewhat 
diverse applications. In the development of a theological no- 
menclature, however, they have acquired (along with other 
less frequent applications) a technical sense with reference to 
the Biblical writers or the Biblical books. The Biblical books 
are called inspired as the Divinely determined products of in- 
spired men; the Biblical writers are called inspired as breathed 
into by the Holy Spirit, so that the product of their activities 
transcends human powers and becomes Divinely authoritative. 
Inspiration is, therefore, usually defined as a supernatural in- 

1 Article “Inspiration,” from The International Standard Bible Encyclo- 
paedia, James Orr General Editor, v. 3, pp. 1473-1483. Pub. Chicago, 1915, by 


The Howard-Severance Co. 
rire 


78 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


fluence exerted on the sacred writers by the Spirit of God, by 
virtue of which their writings are given Divine trustworthiness. 

Meanwhile, for English-speaking men, these terms have 
virtually ceased to be Biblical terms. They naturally passed 
from the Latin Vulgate into the English versions made from it 
(most fully into the Rheims-Douay: Job xxxii. 8; Wisd. xv. 
11; Eeclus. iv. 12::2:Timy 1116; 2 Pet: 1221) Butinei nese. 
velopment of the English Bible they have found ever-decreas- 
ing place. In the English versions of the Apocrypha (both Au- 
thorized Version and Revised Version) “ inspired” is retained 
in Wisd. xv. 11; but in the canonical books the nominal form 
alone occurs in the Authorized Version and that only twice: 
Job xxxil. 8, “ But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration 
of the Almighty giveth them understanding”; and 2 Tim. iii. 
16, “ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profit- 
able for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
righteousness.” The Revised Version removes the former of 
these instances, substituting “ breath ” for “ inspiration ”; and 
alters the latter so as to read: “ Every scripture inspired of God 
is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
struction which is in righteousness,” with a marginal alterna- 
tive in the form of, “ Every scripture is inspired of God and 
profitable,” ete. The word “ inspiration ” thus disappears from 
the English Bible, and the word “inspired” is left in it only 
once, and then, let it be added, by a distinct and even mislead- 
ing mistranslation. 

For the Greek word in this passage — Oedmvevotos, thed- 
pneustos — very distinctly does not mean “ inspired of God.” 
This phrase is rather the rendering of the Latin, divinitus in- 
spirata, restored from the Wyclif (“ Al Scripture of God yn- 
spyridis ...”) and Rhemish (“ All Scripture inspired of God 
is...) versions of the Vulgate. The Greek word does not 
even mean, as the Authorized Version translates it, “ given by 
inspiration of God,” although that rendering (inherited from 
Tindale: “ All Scripture given by inspiration of God is. . .” 
and its successors; cf. Geneva: ‘ The whole Scripture is given 
by inspiration of God andis . . .”’) has at least to say for itself 


INSPIRATION 79 


that it is a somewhat clumsy, perhaps, but not misleading, 
paraphrase of the Greek term in the theological language of 
the day. The Greek term has, however, nothing to say of inspir- 
ing or of zspiration: it speaks only of a “ spiring”’ or “ spira- 
tion.” What it says of Scripture is, not that it is “ breathed into 
by God” or is the product of the Divine “ inbreathing ” into 
its human authors, but that it is breathed out by God, “ God- 
breathed,” the product of the creative breath of God. In a 
word, what is declared by this fundamental passage is simply 
that the Scriptures are a Divine product, without any indica- 
tion of how God has operated in producing them. No term 
could have been chosen, however, which would have more em- 
phatically asserted the Divine production of Scripture than 
that which is here employed. The “ breath of God ” is in Serip- 
ture just the symbol of His almighty power, the bearer of His 
creative word. “ By the word of Jehovah,” we read in the sig- 
nificant parallel of Ps. xxxiil. 6, “ were the heavens made, and 
all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.” And it is 
particularly where the operations of God are energetic that this 
term (whether M9, rath, or 2W3, n°shamah) is employed to 
designate them — God’s breath is the irresistible outflow of 
His power. When Paut declares, then, that “ every scripture,’ 
or “all scripture” is the product of the Divine breath, “1s 
God-breathed,” he asserts with as much energy as he could 
employ that Seripture is the product of a specifically Divine 
operation. 

(1) 2 Tim. ii. 16: In the passage in which Paul makes this 
energetic assertion of the Divine origin of Scripture he is en- 
gaged in explaining the greatness of the advantages which Tim- 
othy had enjoyed for learning the saving truth of God. He had 
had good teachers; and from his very infancy he had been, by 
his knowledge of the Scriptures, made wise unto salvation 
through faith in Jesus Christ. The expression, “sacred writ- 
ings,” here employed (ver. 15), is a technical one, not found 
elsewhere in the New Testament, it is true, but occurring cur- 
rently in Philo and Josephus to designate that body of authori- 
tative books which constituted the Jewish “ Law.” It appears 


80 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


here anarthrously because it is set in contrast with the oral 
teaching which Timothy had enjoyed, as something still bet- 
ter: he had not only had good instructors, but also always “ an 
open Bible,” as we should say, in his hand. To enhance yet fur- 
ther the great advantage of the possession of these Sacred 
Scriptures the apostle adds now a sentence throwing their na- 
ture strongly up to view. They are of Divine origin and there- 
fore of the highest value for all holy purposes. 

There is room for some difference of opinion as to the exact 
construction of this declaration. Shall we render “ Every Scrip- 
ture” or “ All Seripture” ? Shall we render ‘‘ Every [or all] 
Scripture is God-breathed and [therefore] profitable,’ or 
“ Every [or all] Scripture, being God-breathed, is as well prof- 
itable”’? ? No doubt both questions are interesting, but for the 
main matter now engaging our attention they are both indif- 
ferent. Whether Paul, looking back at the Sacred Scriptures he 
had just mentioned, makes the assertion he is about to add, of 
them distributively, of all their parts, or collectively, of their 
entire mass, is of no moment: to say that every part of these 
Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed and to say that the whole of 
these Sacred Scriptures is God-breathed, is, for the main mat- 
ter, all one. Nor is the difference great between saying that 
they are in all their parts, or in their whole extent, God- 
breathed and therefore profitable, and saying that they are in 
all their parts, or in their whole extent, because God-breathed 
as well profitable. In both cases these Sacred Scriptures are 
declared to owe their value to their Divine origin; and in both 
cases this their Divine origin is energetically asserted of their 
entire fabric. On the whole, the preferable construction would 
seem to be, “ Every Scripture, seeing that it is God-breathed, 
is as well profitable.” In that case, what the apostle asserts is 
that the Sacred Scriptures, in their every several passage — for 
it is just “passage of Scripture”? which “Scripture” in this 
distributive use of it signifies —1s the product of the creative 
breath of God, and, because of this its Divine origination, is of 
supreme value for all holy purposes. 

It is to be observed that the apostle does not stop here to 


INSPIRATION 81 


tell us either what particular books enter into the collection 
which he calls Sacred Scriptures, or by what precise operations 
God has produced them. Neither of these subjects entered into 
the matter he had at the moment in hand. It was the value of 
the Scriptures, and the source of that value in their Divine 
origin, which he required at the moment to assert; and these 
things he asserts, leaving to other occasions any further facts 
concerning them which it might be well to emphasize. It is also 
to be observed that the apostle does not tell us here every- 
thing for which the Scriptures are made valuable by their Di- 
vine origination. He speaks simply to the point immediately in 
hand, and reminds Timothy of the value which these Scrip- 
tures, by virtue of their Divine origin, have for the ‘“ man of 
God.” Their spiritual power, as God-breathed, is all that he 
had occasion here to advert to. Whatever other qualities may 
accrue to them from their Divine origin, he leaves to other oc- 
casions to speak of. 

(2) 2 Pet. i. 19-21: What Paul tells here about the Divine 
origin of the Scriptures is enforced and extended by a striking 
passage in 2 Pet. (1. 19-21). Peter is assuring his readers that 
what had been made known to them of “ the power and coming 
of our Lord Jesus Christ ” did not rest on “ cunningly devised 
fables.” He offers them the testimony of eyewitnesses of 
Christ’s glory. And then he intimates that they have better 
testimony than even that of eyewitnesses. ‘‘ We have,” says he, 
“the prophetic word” (English versions, unhappily, “the 
word of prophecy’): and this, he says, is “ more sure,’ and 
therefore should certainly be heeded. He refers, of course, to 
the Scriptures. Of what other “ prophetic word ” could he, over 
against the testimony of the eyewitnesses of Christ’s “ excel- 
lent glory ’’ (Authorized Version) say that “ we have ” it, that 
is, it is in our hands? And he proceeds at once to speak of it 
plainly as “ Scriptural prophecy.” You do well, he says, to pay 
heed to the prophetic word, because we know this first, that 
“every prophecy of scripture .. .” It admits of more ques- 
tion, however, whether by this phrase he means the whole of 
Scripture, designated according to its character, as prophetic, 


82 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


that is, of Divine origin; or only that portion of Scripture 
which we discriminate as particularly prophetic, the immedi- 
ate revelations contained in Scripture. The former is the more 
likely view, inasmuch as the entirety of Scripture is elsewhere 
conceived and spoken of as prophetic. In that case, what Peter 
has to say of this “ every prophecy of scripture’ — the exact 
equivalent, it will be observed, in this case of Paul’s “ every 
scripture ” (2 Tim, iii. 16) — applies to the whole of Scripture 
in all its parts. What he says of it is that it does not come “ of 
private interpretation ”; that is, it is not the result of human 
investigation into the nature of things, the product of its writ- 
ers’ own thinking. This is as much as to say it is of Divine gift. 
Accordingly, he proceeds at once to make this plain in a sup- 
porting clause which contains both the negative and the posi- 
tive declaration: ‘‘ For no prophecy ever came [margin “ was 
brought ”] by the will of man, but it was as borne by the Holy 
Spirit that men spoke from God.” In this singularly precise and 
pregnant statement there are several things which require to 
be carefully observed. There is, first of all, the emphatic de- 
nial that prophecy — that is to say, on the hypothesis upon 
which we are working, Scripture — owes its origin to human 
initiative: “No prophecy ever was brought —‘ came’ is the 
word used in the English version text, with ‘ was brought’ in 
Revised Version margin — by the will of man.” Then, there is 
the equally emphatic assertion that its source hes in God: it 
was spoken by men, indeed, but the men who spoke it “ spake 
from God.” And a remarkable clause is here inserted, and 
thrown forward in the sentence that stress may fall on it, which 
tells us how it could be that men, in speaking, should speak not 
from themselves, but from God: it was “ as borne ” —it is the 
same word which was rendered “ was brought” above, and 
might possibly be rendered “ brought’ here —“ by the Holy 
Spirit ” that they spoke. Speaking thus under the determining 
influence of the Holy Spirit, the things they spoke were not 
from themselves, but from God. 

Here is as direct an assertion of the Divine origin of Scrip- 
ture as that of 2 Tim. i. 16. But there is more here than a 


INSPIRATION 83 


simple assertion of the Divine origin of Scripture. We are ad- 
vanced somewhat in our understanding of how God has pro- 
duced the Scriptures. It was through the instrumentality of 
men who “spake from him.” More specifically, it was through 
an operation of the Holy Ghost on these men which is de- 
scribed as “ bearinig”’ them. The term here used is a very spe- 
cific one. It is not to be confounded with guiding, or directing, 
or controlling, or even leading in the full sense of that word. It 
goes beyond all such terms, in assigning the effect produced 
specifically to the active agent. What is “borne” is taken up 
by the “ bearer,” and conveyed by the “ bearer’s ” power, not 
its own, to the “ bearer’s” goal, not its own. The men who 
spoke from God are here declared, therefore, to have been 
taken up by the Holy Spirit and brought by His power to the 
goal of His choosing. The things which they spoke under this 
operation of the Spirit were therefore His things, not theirs. 
And that is the reason which is assigned why “ the prophetic 
word ”’ is so sure. Though spoken through the instrumentality 
of men, it is, by virtue of the fact that these men spoke “as 
borne by the Holy Spirit,” an immediately Divine word. It 
will be observed that the proximate stress is laid here, not on 
the spiritual value of Scripture (though that, too, is seen in the 
background), but on the Divine trustworthiness of Scripture. 
Because this is the way every prophecy of Scripture “ has been 
brought,” it affords a more sure basis of confidence than even 
the testimony of human eyewitnesses. Of course, if we do not 
understand by ‘the prophetic word” here the entirety of 
Scripture described, according to its character, as revelation, 
but only that element in Scripture which we call specifically 
prophecy, then it is directly only of that element in Scripture 
that these great declarations are made. In any event, however, 
they are made of the prophetic element in Scripture as written, 
which was the only form in which the readers of this Epistle 
possessed it, and which is the thing specifically intimated in 
the phrase ‘‘ every prophecy of scripture.” These great declara- 
tions are made, therefore, at least of large tracts of Scripture; 
and if the entirety of Scripture is intended by the phrase 


84. REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


“the prophetic word,” they are made of the whole of Scrip- 
ture. 

(3) Jn. x. 34f.: How far the supreme trustworthiness of 
Scripture, thus asserted, extends may be conveyed to us by a 
passage in one of Our Lord’s discourses recorded by John (Jn. 
x, 34-85). The Jews, offended by Jesus’ “ making himself God,” 
were in the act to stone Him, when He defended Himself thus: 
“Ts it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called 
them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scrip- 
ture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father sanc- 
tified [margin “ consecrated ”] and sent unto the world, Thou 
blasphemest; because I said, Iam the Son of God?” It may be 
thought that this defence is inadequate. It certainly is incom- 
plete: Jesus made Himself God (Jn. x. 33) in a far higher 
sense than that in which “ Ye are gods” was said of those 
“unto whom the word of God came”: He had just declared in 
unmistakable terms, “I and the Father are one.” But it was 
quite sufficient for the immediate end in view — to repel the 
technical charge of blasphemy based on His making Himself 
God: it is not blasphemy to call one God in any sense in which 
he may fitly receive that designation; and certainly if it is not 
blasphemy to call such men as those spoken of in the passage 
of Scripture adduced gods, because of their official functions, it 
cannot be blasphemy to call Him God whom the Father con- 
secrated and sent into the world. The point for us to note, how- 
ever, is merely that Jesus’ defence takes the form of an appeal 
to Seripture; and it is important to observe how He makes this 
appeal. In the first place, He adduces the Scriptures as law: 
“Ts it not written in your law?” He demands. The passage of 
Seripture which He adduces is not written in that portion of 
Seripture which was more specifically called “the Law,” that 
is to say, the Pentateuch; nor in any portion of Scripture of 
formally legal contents.,/It is written in the Book of Psalms; 
and in a particular psalm which is as far as possible from pre- 
senting the external characteristics of legal enactment (Ps. 
Ixxxl. 6). When Jesus adduces this passage, then, as written in 
the “ law ” of the Jews, He does it, not because it stands in this 


INSPIRATION 85 


psalm, but because it is a part of Scripture at large. In other 
words, He here ascribes legal authority to the entirety of Scrip- 
ture, In accordance with a conception common enough among 
the Jews (cf. Jn. xi. 34), and finding expression in the New 
Testament occasionally, both on the lips of Jesus Himself, and 
in the writings of the apostles. Thus, on a later occasion (Jn. 
xv. 25), Jesus declares that it is written in the “law” of the 
Jews, “ They hated me without a cause,” a clause found in Ps. 
xxxv. 19. And Paul assigns passages both from the Psalms and 
from Isaiah to “the Law ” (1 Cor. xiv. 21; Rom. iti. 19), and 
can write such a sentence as this (Gal. iv. 21 f.): “ Tell me, ye 
‘ that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it 
is written .. .” quoting from the narrative of Genesis. We 
have seen that the entirety of Scripture was conceived as 
“ prophecy ”’; we now see that the entirety of Scripture was 
also conceived as “ law ”’: these three terms, the law, prophecy, 
Seripture,.were indeed, materially, strict synonyms, as our 
present passage itself advises us, by varying the formula of 
adduction in contiguous verses from “law” to “ scripture.” 
And what is thus implied in the manner in which Scripture is 
adduced, is immediately afterward spoken out in the most ex- 
plicit language, because it forms an essential element in Our 
Lord’s defence. It might have been enough to say simply, “ Is 
it not written in your law? ”’ But Our Lord, determined to drive 
His appeal to Scripture home, sharpens the point to the ut- 
most by adding with the highest emphasis: “ and the scripture 
cannot be broken.” This is the reason why it is worth while to 
appeal to what is “ written in the law,” because‘ the scripture 
_cannot be broken.” The word “broken” here is the common 
one for breaking the law, or the Sabbath, or the like (Jn. v. 18; 
vil. 23; Mt. v. 19), and the meaning of the declaration is that 
it is impossible for the Scripture to be annulled, its authority 
to be withstood, or denied. The movement of thought is to the 
effect that, because it is impossible for the Scripture — the 
term is perfectly general and witnesses to the unitary charac- 
ter of Scripture (it is all, for the purpose in hand, of a piece) 
— to be withstood, therefore this particular Scripture which is 


86 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


cited must be taken as of irrefragable authority. What we have . 
here is, therefore, the strongest possible assertion of the inde 
fectible authority of Scripture; precisely what is true of Scrip- 
ture is that it “ cannot be broken.’ Now, what is the particular 
thing in Scripture, for the confirmation of which the indefect- 
ible authority of Scripture is thus invoked? It is one of its 
most casual clauses — more than that, the very form of its ex- 
pression in one of its most casual clauses. This means, of 
course, that in the Saviour’s view the indefectible authority of 
Scripture attaches to the very form of expression of its most 
casual clauses. It belongs to Scripture through and through, 
down to its most minute particulars, that it is of indefectible 
authority. 

It is sometimes suggested, it is true, that Our Lord’s argu- 
ment here is an argumentum ad hominem, and that his words, 
therefore, express not His own view of the authority of Scrip- 
ture, but that of His Jewish opponents. It will scarcely be de- 
nied that there is a vein of satire running through Our Lord’s 
defence: that the Jews so readily allowed that corrupt judges 
might properly be called “ gods,” but could not endure that 
He whom the Father had consecrated and sent into the world 
should call Himself Son of God, was a somewhat pungent fact 
to throw up into such a high hght. But the argument from 
Scripture is not ad hominem but e concessu; Scripture was 
common ground with Jesus and His opponents. If proof were 
needed for so obvious a fact, it would be supplied by the cir- 
cumstance that this is not an isolated but a representative pas- 
sage. The conception of Scripture thrown up into such clear 
view here supplies the ground of all Jesus’ appeals to Scerip- 
ture, and of all the appeals of the New Testament writers as 
well. Everywhere, to Him and to them alike, an appeal to Serip- 
ture is an appeal to an indefectible authority whose determina- 
tion is final; both He and they make their appeal indifferently 
to every part of Scripture, to every element in Scripture, to its 
most incidental clauses as well as to its most fundamental prin- 
ciples, and to the very form of its expression. This attitude 
toward Scripture as an authoritative document is, indeed, al- 


INSPIRATION 87 


ready intimated by their constant designation of it by the 
name of Scripture, the Scriptures, that is ‘ the Document,” by 
way of eminence; and by their customary citation of it with 
the simple formula, “It is written.” What is written in this 
document admits so little of questioning that its authoritative- 
ness required no asserting, but might safely be taken for 
granted. Both modes of expression belong to the constantly 
illustrated habitudes of Our Lord’s speech. The first words He 
is recorded as uttering after His manifestation to Israel were 
an appeal to the unquestionable authority of Scripture; to 
Satan’s temptations He opposed no other weapon than the final 
“Tt is written” ! (Mt. iv. 4.7.10; Lk. iv. 4.8). And among the 
last words which He spoke to His disciples before He was re- 
ceived up was a rebuke to them for not understanding that all 
things ‘“ which are written in the law of Moses, and the proph- 
ets, and psalms ” concerning Him — that is (ver. 45) in the en- 
tire “ Scriptures ” — “ must needs be” (very emphatic) “ ful- 
filled’ (Lk. xxiv. 44). “ Thus it is written,” says He (ver. 46), 
as rendering all doubt absurd. For, as He had explained earlier 
upon the same day (Lk. xxiv. 25 ff.), it argues only that one is 
“foolish and slow at heart ” if he does not “ believe in” (if his 
faith does not rest securely on, as on a firm foundation) “all” 
(without limit of subject-matter here) “ that the prophets ”’ 
(explained in ver. 27 as equivalent to “all the scriptures ’’) 
“have spoken.” 

The necessity of the fulfilment of all that is written in 
Scripture, which is so strongly asserted in these last instruc- 
tions to His disciples, is frequently adverted to by Our Lord. 
He repeatedly explains of occurrences occasionally happening 
that they have come to pass “ that the scripture might be ful- 
filled ”’ (Mk. xiv. 49; Jn. xiii. 18; xvii. 12; ef. xii. 14; Mk. ix. 
12.13). On the basis of Scriptural declarations, therefore, He 
announces with confidence that given events will certainly oc- 
cur: “ All ye shall be offended [literally ‘“scandalized ”] in 
me this night: for it is written .. .” (Mt. xxvi. 31; Mk. xiv. 
27; ef. Lk. xx. 17). Although holding at His command ample 
means of escape, He bows before on-coming calamities, for, He 


88 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


asks, how otherwise “should the scriptures be fulfilled, that 
thus it must be?” (Mt. xxvi. 54). It is not merely the two dis- 
ciples with whom He talked on the way to Emmaus (Lk. xxiv. 
25) whom He rebukes for not trusting themselves more per- 
fectly to the teaching of Scripture. ‘‘ Ye search the scriptures,” 
He says to the Jews, in the classical passage (Jn. v. 39), “ be- 
cause ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are 
they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, 
that ye may have life! ” These words surely were spoken more 
in sorrow than in scorn: there is no blame implied either for 
searching the Scriptures or for thinking that eternal life is to 
be found in Scripture; approval rather. What the Jews are 
blamed for is that they read with a veil lying upon their hearts 
which He would fain take away (2 Cor. ili. 15 f.). “ Ye search 
the scriptures ” — that is right: and “even you” (emphatic) 
“think to have eternal life in them ” — that is right, too. But 
“it is these very Scriptures” (very emphatic) ‘“ which are 
bearing witness” (continuous process) “of me; and” (here 
is the marvel!) “ ye will not come to me and have life! ” — 
that you may, that is, reach the very end you have so properly 
in view in searching the Scriptures. Their failure is due, not to 
the Scriptures but to themselves, who read the Scriptures to 
such little purpose. 

Quite similarly Our Lord often finds occasion to express 
wonder at the little effect to which Scripture had been read, 
not because it had been looked into too curiously, but because 
it had not been looked into earnestly enough, with sufficiently 
simple and robust trust in its every declaration. “‘ Have ye not 
read even this scripture?’”’ He demands, as He adduces Ps. 
exvill. to show that the rejection of the Messiah was already 
intimated in Scripture (Mk. xii. 10; Mt. xxi. 42 varies the ex- 
pression to the equivalent: ‘‘ Did ye never read in the scrip- 
tures? ’’). And when the indignant Jews came to Him com- 
plaining of the Hosannas with which the childrenin the 
Temple were acclaiming Him, and demanding, “ Hearest thou 
what these are saying?” He met them (Mt. xxi. 16) merely 
with, “Yea: did ye never read, Out of the mouths of babes 


INSPIRATION 89 


and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” The underlying 
thought of these passages is spoken out when He intimates 
that the source of all error in Divine things is just ignorance 
of the Scriptures: “ Ye do err,’ He declares to His questioners, 
on an important occasion, “ not knowing the scriptures” (Mt. 
xxlil. 29); or, as it is put, perhaps more forcibly, in interroga- 
tive form, in its parallel in another Gospel: “Is it not for this 
cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures? ” (Mk. xii. 
24). Clearly, he who rightly knows the Scriptures does not err. 
The confidence with which Jesus rested on Scripture, in its 
every declaration, is further illustrated in a passage like Mt. 
xix. 4, Certain Pharisees had come to Him with a question on 
divorce and He met them thus: “ Have ye not read, that he 
who made them from the beginning made them male and fe- 
male, and said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and 
mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become 
one flesh? . . . What therefore God hath joined together, let 
not man put asunder.” The point to be noted is the explicit 
reference of Gen. ii. 24 to God as its author: “ He who made 
them ... said”’; “ what therefore God hath joined together.” 
Yet this passage does not give us a saying of God’s recorded in 
Scripture, but just the word of Scripture itself, and can be 
treated as a declaration of God’s only on the hypothesis that 
all Scripture is a declaration of God’s. The parallel in Mk. (x. 
5 ff.) just as truly, though not as explicitly, assigns the passage 
to God as its author, citing it as authoritative law and speak- 
ing of its enactment as an act of God’s. And it is interesting to 
observe in passing that Paul, having occasion to quote the 
same passage (1 Cor. vi. 16), also explicitly quotes it as a Di- 
vine word: ‘“ For, The twain, saith he, shall become one flesh ” 
— the “he” here, in accordance with a usage to be noted later, 
meaning just “ God.” 

Thus clear is it that Jesus’ occasional adduction of Scrip- 
ture as an authoritative document rests on an ascription of it 
to God as its author. His testimony is that. whatever. stands 
written in Scripture is a word of God. Nor can we evacuate this 
testimony of its force on the plea that it represents Jesus only 


90 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


in the days of His flesh, when He may be supposed to have re- 
flected merely the opinions of His day and generation. The 
view of Scripture He announces was, no doubt, the view of His 
day and generation as well as His own view. But there is no 
reason to doubt that it was held by Him, not because it was the 
current view, but because, in His Divine-human knowledge, 
He knew it to_be true; for, even in His humiliation, He is the 
faithful and true witness. And in any event we should bear in 
mind that this was the view of the resurrected as well as of the 
humiliated Christ. It was after He had suffered and had risen 
again in the power of His Divine life that He pronounced those 
foolish and slow of heart who do not believe all that stands 
written in all the Seriptures (Lk. xxiv. 25); and that He laid 
down the simple ‘“ Thus it is written ” as the sufficient ground 
of confident belief (Lk. xxiv. 46). Nor can we explain away 
Jesus’ testimony to the Divine trustworthiness of Scripture by 
interpreting it as not His own, but that of His followers, placed 
on His lips in their reports of His words. Not only is it too con- 
stant, minute, intimate and in part incidental, and therefore, 
as it were, hidden, to admit of this interpretation; but it so 
pervades all our channels of information concerning Jesus’ 
teaching as to make it certain that it comes actually from Him. 
It belongs not only to the Jesus of our evangelical records but 
as well to the Jesus of the earlier sources which underlie our 
evangelical records, as anyone may assure himself by observing 
the instances in which Jesus adduces the Scriptures as Divinely 
authoritative that are recorded in more than one of the Gospels 
(e.g. “It is written,” Mt. iv. 4.7.10 [Lk. iv. 4.8.10]; Mt. xi. 10; 
[ Lk, vi. 27] ; Mt. xxi, 13. [uk. xix, 46; Mk. 31517); Mite 
ol [Mk. xiv. 21]; “the scripture” or “the scriptures,’ Mt. 
xix. 4 [Mk. x. 9); Mt. xxi: 42 (Mk. xu. 10; Lkiixxo 7s 
xxu. 29 [Mk. xn..24>> Lk. xx. 37]; Mt. xxvi, 56:1 Mik. xiv 
Lk. xxiv. 44]). These passages alone would suffice to make 
clear to us the testimony of Jesus to Scripture as in all its parts 
and declarations Divinely authoritative. 

The attempt to attribute the testimony of Jesus to His fol- 
lowers has in its favor only the undeniable fact that the testi- 


INSPIRATION 91 


mony of the writers of the New Testament is to precisely the 
same effect as His. They, too, cursorily speak of Scripture by 
that pregnant name and adduce it with the simple “ It is writ- 
ten,” with the implication that whatever stands written in it is 
Divinely authoritative. As Jesus’ official life begins with this 
“Tt is written” (Mt. iv. 4), so the evangelical proclamation 
begins with an “ Even as it is written ” (Mk. i. 2); and as Jesus 
sought the justification of His work in a solemn “ Thus it is 
written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the 
dead the third day ” (Lk. xxiv. 46 ff.), so the apostles solemnly 
justified the Gospel which they preached, detail after detail, by 
appeal to the Scriptures, ‘‘ That Christ died for our sins ac- 
cording to the scriptures’ and “ That he hath been raised on 
the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Cor. xv. 3.4; ef. 
NCUSBVIIIN OO eXVill os XXVi. 22, and also: Romi 1 L/7 ane 410; 
iveeliseexd oO + xiveslie) 16 Cor. 1.019 11097 1119 xvi4o. Galan. 
10.13; iv. 22.27). Wherever they carried the gospel it was as a 
gospel resting on Scripture that they proclaimed it (Acts xvii. 
2; xvill. 24.28); and they encouraged themselves to test its 
truth by the Scriptures (Acts xvi. 11). The holiness of life 
they inculcated, they based on Scriptural requirement (1 Pet. 
i. 16), and they commended the royal law of love which they 
taught by Scriptural sanction (Jas. 11. 8). Every detail of duty 
was supported by them by an appeal to Scripture (Acts xxi. 
5; Rom. xil. 19). The circumstances of their lives and the 
events occasionally occurring about them are referred to Scrip- 
ture for their significance (Rom. i. 26; viii. 36; ix. 33; xi. 8; 
xv. 9.21; 2 Cor. iv. 13). As Our Lord declared that whatever 
was written in Scripture must needs be fulfilled (Mt. xxvi. 54; 
Lk. xxii. 37; xxiv. 44), so His followers explained one of the 
most startling facts which had occurred in their experience by 
pointing out that “it was needful that the scripture should be 
fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spake before by the mouth of 
David” (Acts i. 16). Here the ground of this constant appeal 
to Scripture, so that it is enough that a thing “1s contained in 
scripture” (1 Pet. ii. 6) for it to be of indefectible authority, 
is plainly enough declared: Scripture must needs be fulfilled, 


92 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


for what is contained in it is the declaration of the Holy Ghost 
through the human author. What Scripture says, God says; 
and accordingly we read such remarkable declarations as these: 
“ For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose 
did I raise thee up ” (Rom. ix. 17); “ And the scripture, fore- 
seeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached 
the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, ... In thee shall all 
the nations be blessed ” (Gal. iii. 8). These are not instances of 
simple personification of Scripture, which is itself a sufficiently 
remarkable usage (Mk. xv. 28; Jn. vii. 38.42; xix. 37; Rom. iv. 
97 Kell oxin2-| GalhivesOmiiniay Loe dass eo cn eee 
vocal with the conviction expressed by James (ir. 5) that 
Scripture cannot. speak.in-vain. They indicate a certain con- 
fusion in current speech between “ Scripture ” and “ God,” the 
outgrowth of a deep-seated conviction that the word of Scrip- 
ture is the word of God. It was not “ Scripture ’”’ that spoke to 
Pharaoh, or gave his great promise to Abraham, but God. But 
“Scripture ”’ and “God” lay so close together in the minds of 
the writers of the New Testament that they could naturally 
speak of “Scripture ” doing what Scripture records God as do- 
ing. It was, however, even more natural to them to speak casu- 
ally of God saying what the Scriptures say; and accordingly 
we meet with forms of speech such as these: “ Wherefore, even 
as the Holy Spirit saith, To-day if ye shall hear His voice,” 
etc. (Heb. 111. 7, quoting Ps. xev. 7); “ Thou art God . . . who 
by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the 
heathen rage,” ete. (Acts iv. 25 Authorized Version, quoting 
Ps. 11. 1); “He that raised him from the dead... hath 
spoken on this wise, I will give you . . . because he saith also 
in another [place] .. .” (Acts xi. 34, quoting Isa. lv. 3 and 
Ps. xvi. 10), and the like. The words put into God’s mouth in 
each case are not words of God recorded in the Scriptures, but 
just Seripture words in themselves. When we take the two 
classes of passages together, in the one of which the Scriptures 
are spoken of as God, while in the other God is spoken of as if 
He were the Scriptures, we may perceive how close the identi- 
fication of the two was in the minds of the writers of the New 
Testament. 


INSPIRATION 93 


This identification is strikingly observable in certain ca- 
tenae of quotations, in which there are brought together a 
number of passages of Scripture closely connected with one an- 
other. The first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews supplies 
an example. We may begin with ver. 5: “ For unto which of 
the angels said he” — the subject being necessarily “‘ God ”’ 
— “at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten 
thee? ” — the citation being from Ps. ii. 7 and very appropri- 
ate in the mouth of God— “and again, I will be to him a 
Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” — from 2 §. vii. 14, 
again a declaration of God’s own — “ And when he again bring- 
eth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the an- 
gels of God worship him ” — from Deut. xxxii. 48, Septuagint, 
or Ps. xevii. 7, in neither of which is God the speaker — “ And 
of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, and his 
ministers a flame of fire’ — from Ps. civ. 4, where again God 
is not the speaker but is spoken of in the third person — “ but 
of the Son he saith. Thy throne, O God, ete.” — from Ps. xlv. 
6.7 where again God is not the speaker, but is addressed — 
“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning,” ete. — from Ps. cii. 25- 
27, where again God is not the speaker but is addressed — 
“ But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou 
on my right hand? ” etc. — from Ps. ex. 1, in which God is the 
speaker. Here we have passages in which God is the speaker 
and passages in which God is not the speaker, but is addressed 
or spoken of, indiscriminately assigned to God, because they 
all have it in common that they are words of Scripture, and as 
words of Scripture are words of God. Similarly in Rom. xv. 
9 ff. we have a series of citations the first of which is introduced 
by “as it is written,” and the next two by “again he saith,” 
and “again,” and the last by ‘and again, Isaiah saith,” the 
first being from Ps. xvili. 49; the second from Deut. xxxii. 43; 
the third from Ps. exvii. 1; and the last from Isa. xi. 10. Only 
the last (the only one here assigned to the human author) is a 
word of God in the text of the Old Testament. 

This view of the Scriptures as a compact mass of words of 
God occasioned the formation of a designation for them by 


94 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


which this their character was explicitly expressed. This des- 
ignation is “ the sacred oracles,” “ the oracles of God.” It oc- 
curs with extraordinary frequency in Philo, who very com- 
monly refers to Scripture as “ the sacred oracles”’ and cites its 
several passages as each an “ oracle.” Sharing, as they do, 
Philo’s conception of the Scriptures as, in all their parts, a 
word of God, the New Testament writers naturally also speak 
of them under this designation. The classical passage 1s Rom. 
ili. 2 (ef. Heb. v. 12; Acts vii. 88). Here Paul begins an enu- 
meration of the advantages which belonged to the chosen peo- 
ple above other nations; and, after declaring these advantages 
to have been great and numerous, he places first among them 
all their possession of the Scriptures: “ What advantage then 
hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much 
every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles 
of God.” That by “ the oracles of God ” here are meant just the 
Holy Scriptures in their entirety, conceived as a direct Divine 
revelation, and not any portions of them, or elements in them 
more especially thought of as revelatory, is perfectly clear from 
the wide contemporary use of this designation in this sense by 
Philo, and is put beyond question by the presence in the New 
Testament of habitudes of speech which rest on and grow out 
of the conception of Scripture embodied in this term. From 
the point of view of this designation, Scripture is thought of as 
the living voice of God speaking in all its parts directly to the 
reader; and, accordingly, it is cited by some such formula as 
“it is said,” and this mode of citing Scripture duly occurs as 
an alternative to “it is written ” (Lk. iv. 12, replacing “it is 
written ” in Mt.; Heb. iii. 15; ef. Rom. iv. 18). It is due also to 
this point of view that Scripture is cited, not as what God or 
the Holy Spirit “ said,” but what He “ says,” the present tense 
emphasizing the living voice of God speaking in Scriptures to 
the individual soul (Heb. iii. 7; Acts xiii. 835; Heb. i. 7. 8. 10; 
Rom. xv. 10). And especially there is due to it the peculiar 
usage by which Scripture is cited by the simple “ saith,” with- 
out expressed subject, the subject being too well understood, 
when Scripture is adduced, to require stating; for who could 


INSPIRATION 95 


be the speaker of the words of Scripture but God only (Rom. 
veel Us la@or evi 16:52) Cor vir 2aGalvilitO ei pinive >; Ve 
14)? The analogies of this pregnant subjectless “saith” are 
very widespread. It was with it that the ancient Pythagoreans 
and Platonists and the mediaeval Aristotelians adduced each 
their master’s teaching; it was with it that, in certain circles, 
the judgments of Hadrian’s great jurist Salvius Julianus were 
cited; African stylists were even accustomed to refer by it to 
Sallust, their great model. There is a tendency, cropping out 
occasionally, in the old Testament, to omit the name of God 
as superfluous, when He, as the great logical subject always in 
mind, would be easily understood (cf. Job xx. 23; xxi. 17; Ps. 
exiv. 2; Lam. iv. 22). So, too, when the New Testament writers 
quoted Scripture there was no need to say whose word it was: 
that lay beyond question in every mind. This usage, accord- 
ingly, is a specially striking intimation of the vivid sense which 
the New Testament writers had of the Divine origin of the 
Scriptures, and means that in citing them they were acutely 
conscious that they were citing immediate words of God. How 
completely the Scriptures were to them just the word of God 
may be illustrated by a passage like Gal. ii. 16: “ He saith not, 
And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which 
is Christ.” We have seen Our Lord hanging an argument on 
the very words of Scripture (Jn. x. 34); elsewhere His reason- 
ing depends on the particular tense (Mt. xxii. 32) or word 
(Mt. xxii. 48) used in Scripture. Here Paul’s argument rests 
similarly on a grammatical form. No doubt it is the grammati- 
cal form of the word which God is recorded as having spoken 
to Abraham that is in question. But Paul knows what gram- 
matical form God employed in speaking to Abraham only as 
the Scriptures have transmitted it to him; and, as we have 
seen, in citing the words of God and the words of Scripture he 
was not accustomed to make any distinction between them. It 
is probably the Scriptural word as a Scriptural word, therefore, 
which he has here in mind: though, of course, it is possible 
that what he here witnesses to is rather the detailed trust- 
worthiness of the Scriptural record than its direct divinity — 


96 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


if we can separate two things which apparently were not sepa- 
rated in Paul’s mind. This much we can at least say without. 
straining, that the designation of Scripture as “ scripture ” 
and its citation by the formula, “It is written,’ attest pri- 
marily its indefectible authority; the designation of it as 
“oracles”? and the adduction of it by the formula, “ It says,” 
attest primarily its immediate divinity. Its authority rests on 
its divinity and its divinity expresses itself in its trustworthi- 
ness; and the New Testament writers in all their use of it 
treat it as what they declare it to be — a God-breathed docu- 
ment, which, because God-breathed, as through and through 
trustworthy in all its assertions, authoritative in all its declara- 
tions, and down to its last particular, the very word of God, 
His “ oracles.” | 

That the Seriptures are throughout a Divine book, created 
by the Divine energy and speaking in their every part with Di- 
vine authority directly to the heart of the readers, is the funda- 
mental fact concerning them which is witnessed by Christ and 
the sacred writers to whom we owe the New Testament. But 
the strength and constancy with which they bear witness to 
this primary fact do not prevent their recognizing by the side 
of it that the Scriptures have come into being by the agency 
of men. It would be inexact to say that they recognize a human 
element in Scripture: they do not parcel Scripture out, assign- 
ing portions of it, or elements in it, respectively to God and 
man. In their view the whole of Scripture in all its parts and in 
all its elements, down to the least minutiae, in form of expres- 
sion as well as in substance of teaching, is from God; but the 
whole of it has been given by God through the instrumentality 
of men. There is, therefore, in their view, not, indeed, a human 
element or ingredient in Scripture, and much less human divi- 
sions or sections of Scripture, but a human side or aspect to 
Scripture; and they do not fail to give full recognition to this 
human side or aspect. In one of the primary passages which 
has already been before us, their conception is given, if some- 
what broad’and very succinct, yet clear expression. No ‘ proph- 
ecy, Peter tells us (2 Pet. i. 21), ‘ever came by the will of 


INSPIRATION 97 


man; but as borne by the Holy Ghost, men spake from God.’ 
Here the whole initiative is assigned to God, and such com- 
plete control of the human agents that the product is truly 
God’s work. The men who speak in this “ prophecy of scrip- 
ture ” speak not of themselves or out of themselves, but from 
“God”: they speak only as they are “borne by the Holy 
Ghost.” But it is they, after all, who speak. Scripture is the 
product of man, but only of man speaking from God and 
under such a control of the Holy Spirit as that in their speak- 
ing they are “borne” by Him. The conception obviously is 
that the Scriptures have been given by the instrumentality of 
men; and this conception finds repeated incidental expression 
throughout the New Testament. 

It is this conception, for example, which is expressed when 
Our Lord, quoting Ps. ex., declares of its words that ‘ David 
himself said in the Holy Spirit ” (Mk. xii. 36). There is a cer- 
tain emphasis here on the words being David’s own words, 
which is due to the requirements of the argument Our Lord 
was conducting, but which none the less sincerely represents 
Our Lord’s conception of their origin. They are David’s own 
words which we find in Ps. ex., therefore; but they are David’s 
own words, spoken not of his own motion merely, but “in the 
_ Holy Spirit,” that is to say — we could not better paraphrase 
it — “as borne by the Holy Spirit.” In other words, they are 
“God-breathed ” words and therefore authoritative in a sense 
above what any words of David, not spoken in the Holy Spirit, 
could possibly be. Generalizing the matter, we may say that 
the words of Scripture are conceived by Our Lord and the New 
Testament writers as the words of their human authors when 
speaking “in the Holy Spirit,” that is to say, by His initiative 
and under His controlling direction. The conception finds even 
more precise expression, perhaps, in such a statement as we 
find — it is Peter who is speaking and it is again a psalm which 
is cited — in Acts 1. 16, “ The Holy Spirit spake by the mouth 
of David.” ‘Here the Holy Spirit is adduced, of course, as 
“the real author of what is said (and hence Peter’s certainty 
that what is said will be fulfilled) ; but David’s mouth is ex- 


98 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


pressly designated as the instrument (it is the instrumental 
preposition that is used) by means of which the Holy Spirit 
speaks the Scripture in question. He does not speak save 
through David’s mouth. Accordingly, in Acts iv. 25, ‘ the Lord 
that made the heaven and earth,’ acting by His Holy Spirit, is 
declared to have spoken another psalm ‘ through the mouth of 
... David,’ His “ servant”; and in Mt. xii. 35 still another 
psalm is adduced as “spoken through the prophet” (cf. Mt. 
ii. 5). In the very act of energetically asserting the Divine 
origin of Scripture the human instrumentality through which 
it is given is constantly recognized. The New Testament writ- 
ers have, therefore, no difficulty in assigning Scripture to its 
human authors, or in discovering in Scripture traits due to its 
human authorship. They freely quote it by such simple for- 
mulae as these: “‘ Moses saith” (Rom. x. 19); “ Moses said ”’ 
(Mt. xxii. 24; Mk. vii. 10; Acts iii. 22); ‘“ Moses writeth ” 
(Rom. x. 5)5 2" Moses: wrote 7) (Vi kivsa1ie 1 Oak expe 
““Tsaiah © .. saith’? ( Rom ix)20).. Isaiah © saids iG) nee 
39); “Isaiah crieth”’ (Rom. ix. 27); “ Isaiah hath said be- 
fore”? (Rom. ix. 29); “said Isaiah the prophet ” (Jn. 1. 23); 
“did Isaiah prophesy” (Mk. vii. 6; Mt. xv. 7); “ David 
saith ’’ (Lk. xx. 42; Acts 1.25; Rom. x1. 9); “ David said? 
(Mk. xu. 36). It is to be noted that when thus Scripture is ad- 
duced by the names of its human authors, it is a matter of com- 
plete indifference whether the words adduced are comments of 
these authors or direct words of God recorded by them. As the 
plainest words of the human authors are assigned to God as 
their real author, so the most express words of God, repeated 
by the Scriptural writers, are cited by the names of these hu- 
man writers (Mt. xv. 7; Mk. vu. 6; Rom. x. 5.19.20; cf. Mk. 
vu. 10 from the Decalogue). To say that ‘‘ Moses ” or “‘ David 
says,” is evidently thus only a way of saying that “ Scripture 
says,’ which is the same as to say that ‘“‘ God says.” Such modes 
of citing Scripture, accordingly, carry us little beyond merely 
connecting the name, or perhaps we may say the individuality, 
of the several writers with the portions of Scripture given 
through each. How it was given through them is left mean- 


INSPIRATION 99 


while, if not without suggestion, yet without specific explana- 
tion. We seem safe only in inferring this much: that the gift 
of Scripture through its human authors took place by a process 
much more intimate than can be expressed by the term “ dic- 
tation,” and that it took place in a process in which the control 
of the Holy Spirit was too complete and pervasive to permit 
the human qualities of the secondary authors in any way to 
condition the purity of the product as the word of God. The 
Scriptures, in other words, are conceived by the writers of the 
New Testament as through and through God’s book, in every 
part expressive of His mind, given through men after a fashion 
which does no violence to their nature as men, and constitutes 
the book also men’s book as well as God’s, in every part expres- 
sive of the mind of its human authors. 

If we attempt to get behind this broad statement and to 
obtain a more detailed conception of the activities by which 
God has given the Scriptures, we are thrown back upon some- 
_what general representations, supported by the analogy of the 

modes of God’s working in other spheres of His operation. It is 
very desirable that we should free ourselves at the outset from 
influences arising from the current employment of the term 
“inspiration” to designate this process. This term is not a 
Biblical term and its etymological implications are not per- 
fectly accordant with the Biblical conception of the modes of 
the Divine operation in giving the Scriptures. The Biblical 
writers do not conceive of the Scriptures as a human product 
breathed into by the Divine Spirit, and thus heightened in its 
qualities or endowed with new qualities; but as a Divine prod- 
uct produced through the instrumentality of men. They do not 
conceive of these men, by whose instrumentality Scripture is 
produced, as working upon their own initiative, though ener- 
gized by God to greater effort and higher achievement, but as 
moved by the Divine initiative and borne by the irresistible 
power of the Spirit of God along ways of His choosing to ends 
of His appointment. The difference between the two concep- 
tions may not appear great when the mind is fixed exclusively 
upon the nature of the resulting product. But they are differ- 


100 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ing conceptions, and look at the production of Scripture from 
distinct points of view — the human and the Divine; and the 
involved mental attitudes toward the origin of Scripture are 
very diverse. The term “inspiration” is too firmly fixed, in 
both theological and popular usage, as the technical designa- 
tion of the action of God in giving the Scriptures, to be re- 
placed; and we may be thankful that its native implications 
lie as close as they do to the Biblical conceptions. Meanwhile, 
however, it may be justly insisted that it shall receive its defi- 
nition from the representations of Scripture, and not be per- 
mitted to impose upon our thought ideas of the origin of 
Scripture derived from an analysis of its own implications, 
etymological or historical. The Scriptural conception of the re- 
lation of the Divine Spirit to the human authors in the produc- 
tion of Scripture is better expressed by the figure of “ bearing ” 
than by the figure of “ inbreathing”’; and when our Biblical 
writers speak of the action of the Spirit of God in this relation 
as a breathing, they represent it as a “ breathing out” of the 
Scriptures by the Spirit, and not a “ breathing into ”’ the Scrip- 
tures by Him. 

So soon, however, as we seriously endeavor to form for our- 
selves a clear conception of the precise nature of the Divine ac- 
tion in this “ breathing out ” of the Scriptures — this “ bear- 
ing” of the writers of the Scriptures to their appointed goal of 
the production of a book of Divine trustworthiness and inde- 
fectible authority — we become acutely aware of a more 
deeply lying and much wider problem, apart from which this 
one of inspiration, technically so called, cannot be profitably 
considered. This is the general problem of the origin of the 
Scriptures and the part of God in all that complex of processes 
by the interaction of which these books, which we call the 
sacred Scriptures, with all their peculiarities, and all their 
qualities of whatever sort, have been brought into being. For, 
of course, these books were not produced suddenly, by some 
miraculous act — handed down complete out of heaven, as the 
phrase goes; but, like all other products of time, are the ulti- 
mate effect of many processes cooperating through long pe- 


INSPIRATION 101 


riods. There is to be considered, for instance, the preparation 
of the material which forms the subject-matter of these books: 
in a sacred history, say, for example, to be narrated; or in a 
religious experience which may serve as a norm for record; or 
in a logical elaboration of the contents of revelation which 
may be placed at the service of God’s people; or in the progres- 
sive revelation of Divine truth itself, supplying their culminat- 
ing contents. And there is the preparation of the men to write 
these books to be considered, a preparation physical, intellec- 
tual, spiritual, which must have attended them throughout 
their whole lives, and, indeed, must have had its beginning in 
their remote ancestors, and the effect of which was to bring the 
right men to the right places at the right times, with the right 
endowments, impulses, acquirements, to write just the books 
which were designed for them. When “ inspiration,” techni- 
cally so called, is superinduced on lines of preparation like 
these, it takes on quite a different aspect from that which it 
bears when it is thought of as an isolated action of the Divine 
Spirit operating out of all relation to historical processes. Rep- 
resentations are sometimes made as if, when God wished to 
produce sacred books which would incorporate His will—a 
series of letters like those of Paul, for example — He was re- 
duced to the necessity of going down to earth and painfully 
scrutinizing the men He found there, seeking anxiously for the 
one who, on the whole, promised best for His purpose; and 
then violently forcing the material He wished expressed 
through him, against his natural bent, and with as little loss 
from his recalcitrant characteristics as possible. Of course, 
nothing of the sort took place. If God wished to give His peo- 
ple a series of letters like Paul’s, He prepared a Paul to write 
them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who 
spontaneously would write just such letters. 

If we bear this in mind, we shall know what estimate to 
place upon the common representation to the effect that the 
human characteristics of the writers must, and in point of fact 
do, condition and qualify the writings produced by them, the 
implication being that, therefore, we cannot get from man a 


102 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


pure word of God. As light that passes through the colored 
glass of a cathedral window, we are told, is light from heaven, 
but is stained by the tints of the glass through which it passes; 
so any word of God which is passed through the mind and soul 
of a man must come out discolored by the personality through 
which it is given, and just to that degree ceases to be the pure 
word of God. But what if this personality has itself been 
formed by God into precisely the personality it is, for the ex- 
press purpose of communicating to the word given through it 
just the coloring which it gives it? What if the colors of the 
stained-glass window have been designed by the architect for 
the express purpose of giving to the light that floods the cathe- 
dral precisely the tone and quality it receives from them? 
What if the word of God that comes to His people is framed by 
God into the word of God it is, precisely by means of the qual- 
ities of the men formed by Him for the purpose, through which 
it is given? When we think of God the Lord giving by His 
Spirit a body of authoritative Scriptures to His people, we 
must remember that He is the God of providence and of grace 
as well as of revelation and inspiration, and that He holds all 
the lines of preparation as fully under His direction as He does 
the specific operation which we call technically, in the narrow 
sense, by the name of “inspiration.” The production of the 
Scriptures is, in point of fact, a long process, in the course of 
which numerous and very varied Divine activities are involved, 
providential, gracious, miraculous, all of which must be taken 
into account in any attempt to explain the relation of God to 
the production of Scripture. When they are all taken into ac- 
count we can no longer wonder that the resultant Scriptures 
are constantly spoken of as the pure word of God. We wonder, 
rather, that an additional operation of God— what we call 
specifically “ inspiration,” in its technical sense — was thought 
necessary. Consider, for example, how a piece of sacred history 
—say the Book of Chronicles, or the great historical work, 
Gospel and Acts, of Luke — is brought to the writing. There is 
first of all the preparation of the history to be written: God the 
Lord leads the sequence of occurrences through the develop- 


INSPIRATION 103 


ment He has designed for them that they may convey their 
lessons to His people: a “ teleological” or “ aetiological ”’ char- 
acter is inherent in the very course of events. Then He pre- 
pares a man, by birth, training, experience, gifts of grace, and, 
if need be, of revelation, capable of appreciating this historical 
development and eager to search it out, thrilling in all his be- 
ing with its lessons and bent upon making them clear and effec- 
tive to others. When, then, by His providence, God sets this 
man to work on the writing of this history, will there not be 
spontaneously written by him the history which it was Di- 
vinely intended should be written? Or consider how a psalmist 
would be prepared to put into moving verse a piece of norma- 
tive religious experience: how he would be born with just the 
right quality of religious sensibility, of parents through whom 
he should receive just the right hereditary bent, and from 
whom he should get precisely the right religious example and 
training, in circumstances of life in which his religious tend- 
encies should be developed precisely on right lines; how he 
would be brought through just the right experiences to quicken 
in him the precise emotions he would be called upon to express, 
and finally would be placed in precisely the exigencies which 
would call out their expression. Or consider the providential 
preparation of a writer of a didactic epistle —— by means of 
which he should be given the intellectual breadth and acute- 
ness, and be trained in habitudes of reasoning, and placed in 
the situations which would call out precisely the argumenta- 
tive presentation of Christian truth which was required of him. 
When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of 
the providential government of God, to the minuteness and 
completeness of its sway, and to its invariable efficacy, we may 
be inclined to ask what is needed beyond this mere providen- 
tial government to secure the production of sacred books which 
should be in every detail absolutely accordant with the Divine 
will. 

The answer is, Nothing is needed beyond mere providence 
to secure such books — provided only that it does not lie in the 
Divine purpose that these books should possess qualities which 


104 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


rise above the powers of men to produce, even under the most 
complete Divine guidance. For providence is guidance; and 
guidance can bring one only so far as his own power can carry 
him. If heights are to be scaled above man’s native power to 
achieve, then something more than guidance, however effec- 
tive, is necessary. This is the reason for the superinduction, at 
the end of the long process of the production of Scripture, of 
the additional Divine operation which we call technically “ in- 
spiration.” By it, the Spirit of God, flowing confluently in with 
the providentially and graciously determined work of men, 
spontaneously producing under the Divine directions the writ- 
ings appointed to them, gives the product a Divine quality un- 
attainable by human powers alone. Thus these books become 
not merely the word of godly men, but the immediate word of 
God Himself, speaking directly as such to the minds and hearts 
of every reader. The value of “ inspiration ” emerges, thus, as 
twofold. It gives to the books written under its “ bearing” a 
quality which is truly superhuman; a trustworthiness, an au- 
thority, a searchingness, a profundity, a profitableness which 
is altogether Divine. And it speaks this Divine word immedi- 
ately to each reader’s heart and conscience; so that he does not 
require to make his way to God, painfully, perhaps even un- 
certainly, through the words of His servants, the human in- 
struments in writing the Scriptures, but can listen directly to 
the Divine voice itself speaking immediately in the Scriptural 
word to him. 

That the writers of the New Testament themselves con- 
ceive the Scriptures to have been produced thus by Divine op- 
erations extending through the increasing ages and involving 
a multitude of varied activities, can be made clear by simply 
attending to the occasional references they make to this or 
that step in the process. It lies, for example, on the face of their 
expositions, that they looked upon the Biblical history as tele- 
ological. Not only do they tell us that “ whatsoever things were 
written aforetime were written for our learning, that through 
patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have 
hope” (Rom. xv. 4; cf. Rom. iv. 23.24) ; they speak also of the 


INSPIRATION 105 


course of the historical events themselves as guided for our 
benefit: “ Now these things happened unto them by way of 
example” — in a typical fashion, in such a way that, as they 
occurred, a typical character, or predictive reference impressed 
itself upon them; that is to say, briefly, the history occurred as 
it did in order to bear a message to us — “ and they were writ- 
ten for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are 
come” (1 Cor. x. 11; cf. ver. 6). Accordingly, it has become a 
commonplace of Biblical exposition that “the history of re- 
demption itself is a typically progressive one” (Kiiper), and 
is “in a manner impregnated with the prophetic element,” so 
as to form a “ part of a great plan which stretches from the 
fall of man to the first consummation of all things in glory; 
and, in so far as it reveals the mind of God toward man, car- 
ries a respect to the future not less than to the present ” 
(P. Fairbairn). It les equally on the face of the New Testa- 
ment allusions to the subject that its writers understood that 
the preparation of men to become vehicles of God’s message 
to man was not of yesterday, but had its beginnings in the very 
origin of their being. The call by which Paul, for example, was 
made an apostle of Jesus Christ was sudden and apparently 
without antecedents; but it 1s precisely this Paul who reckons 
this call as only one step in a long process, the beginnings of 
which antedated his own existence: “ But when it was the good 
pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s 
womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in 
me” (Gal. 1. 15.16; cf. Jer. 1. 5; Isa. xlix. 1.5). The recognition 
by the writers of the New Testament of the experiences of 
God’s grace, which had been vouchsafed to them as an integral 
element in their fitting to be the bearers of His gospel to others, 
finds such pervasive expression that the only difficulty is to 
select from the mass the most illustrative passages. Such a 
statement as Paul gives in the opening verses of 2 Cor. is thor- 
oughly typical. There he represents that he has been afflicted 
and comforted to the end that he might “be able to comfort 
them that are in any affliction, through the comfort where- 
with” he had himself been “ comforted of God.” For, he ex- 


106 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


plains, ‘‘ Whether we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and 
salvation; or whether we are comforted, it is for your comfort, 
which worketh in the patient enduring of the same sufferings 
which we also suffer” (2 Cor. i. 4-6). It is beyond question, 
therefore, that the New Testament writers, when they declare 
the Scriptures to be the product of the Divine breath, and ex- 
plain this as meaning that the writers of these Scriptures wrote 
them only as borne by the Holy Spirit in such a fashion that 
they spoke, not out of themselves, but “ from God,” are think- 
ing of this operation of the Spirit only as the final act of God 
in the production of the Scriptures, superinduced upon a long 
series of processes, providential, gracious, miraculous, by which 
the matter of Scripture had been prepared for writing, and the 
men for writing it, and the writing of it had been actually 
brought to pass. It is this final act in the production of Scrip- 
ture which is technically called “ inspiration ”’; and inspiration 
is thus brought before us as, in the minds of the writers of the 
New Testament, that particular operation of God in the pro- 
duction of Scripture which takes effect at the very point of the 
writing of Scripture — understanding the term “ writing” 
here as inclusive of all the processes of the actual composition 
of Scripture, the investigation of documents, the collection of 
facts, the excogitation of conclusions, the adaptation of ex- 
hortations as means to ends and the like — with the effect of 
giving to the resultant Scripture a specifically supernatural 
character, and constituting it a Divine, as well as human, 
book. Obviously the mode of operation of this Divine activity 
moving to this result is conceived, in full accord with the anal- 
ogy of the Divine operations in other spheres of its activity, in 
providence and in grace alike, as confluent with the human 
activities operative in the case; as, in a word, of the nature of 
what has come to be known as “ immanent action.” 

It will not escape observation that thus “ inspiration ” is 
made a mode of “revelation.” We are often exhorted, to be 
sure, to distinguish sharply between “ inspiration ” and “ reve- 
lation”; and the exhortation is just when “revelation ” is 
taken in one of its narrower senses, of, say, an external mani- 


INSPIRATION 107 


festation of God, or of an immediate communication from God 
in words. But “ inspiration ” does not differ from “ revelation ” 
in these narrowed senses as genus from genus, but as a species 
of one genus differs from another. That operation of God which 
we call “inspiration,” that is to say, that operation of the 
Spirit of God by which He “ bears ”’ men in the process of com- 
posing Scripture, so that they write, not of themselves, but 
“from God,” is one of the modes in which God makes known 
to men His being, His will, His operations, His purposes. It is 
as distinctly a mode of revelation as any mode of revelation 
can be, and therefore it performs the same office which all reve- 
lation performs, that is to say, in the express words of Paul, 
it makes men wise, and makes them wise unto salvation. All 
“special” or “ supernatural ” revelation (which is redemptive 
in its very idea, and occupies a place as a substantial element 
in God’s redemptive processes) has precisely this for its end; 
and Scripture, as a mode of the redemptive revelation of God, 
finds its fundamental purpose just in this: if the “ inspira- 
tion’ by which Scripture is produced renders it trustworthy 
and authoritative, it renders it trustworthy and authoritative 
only that it may the better serve to make men wise unto salva- 
tion. Scripture is conceived, from the point of view of the writ- 
ers of the New Testament, not merely as the record of revela- 
tions, but as itself a part of the redemptive revelation of God; 
not merely as the record of the redemptive acts by which God 
is saving the world, but as itself one of these redemptive acts, 
haying its own part to play in the great work of establishing 
and building up the kingdom of God. What gives it a place 
among the redemptive acts of God is its Divine origination, 
taken in its widest sense, as inclusive of all the Divine opera- 
tions, providential, gracious and expressly supernatural, by 
which it has been made just what it is—a body of writings 
able to make wise unto salvation, and profitable for making 
the man of God perfect. What gives it its place among the 
modes of revelation is, however, specifically the culminating 
one of these Divine operations, which we call “ Inspiration ”’; 
that is to say, the action of the Spirit of God in so “ bearing ” 


108 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


its human authors in their work of producing Scripture, as that 
in these Scriptures they speak, not out of themselves, but 
“from God.” It is this act by virtue of which the Scriptures 
may properly be called “ God-breathed.” 

It has been customary among a certain school of writers to 
speak of the Scriptures, because thus “ inspired,” as a Divine- 
human book, and to appeal to the analogy of Our Lord’s Di- 
vine-human personality to explain their peculiar qualities as 
such. The expression calls attention to an important fact, and 
the analogy holds good a certain distance. There are human 
and Divine sides to Scripture, and, as we cursorily examine it, 
we may perceive in it, alternately, traits which suggest now the 
one, now the other factor in its origin. But the analogy with 
Our Lord’s Divine-human personality may easily be pressed 
beyond reason. There is no hypostatic union between the Di- 
vine and the human in Scripture; we cannot parallel the “ in- 
scripturation ” of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of the 
Son of God. The Scriptures are merely the product of Divine 
and human forces working together to produce a product in the 
production of which the human forces work under the initia- 
tion and prevalent direction of the Divine: the person of Our 
Lord unites in itself Divine and human natures, each of which 
retains its distinctness while operating only in relation to the 
other. Between such diverse things there can exist only a re- 
mote analogy; and, in point of fact, the analogy in the present 
instance amounts to no more than that in both cases Divine 
and human factors are involved, though very differently. In 
the one they unite to constitute a Divine-human person, in the 
other they codperate to perform a Divine-human work. Even 
so distant an analogy may enable us, however, to recognize 
that as, in the case of Our Lord’s person, the human nature 
remains truly human while yet it can never fall into sin or 
error because it can never act out of relation with the Divine 
nature into conjunction with which it has been brought; so in 
the case of the production of Scripture by the conjoint action 
of human and Divine factors, the human factors have acted as 
human factors, and have left their mark on the product as such, 


INSPIRATION 109 


and yet cannot have fallen into that error which we say it is 
human to fall into, because they have not acted apart from the 
Divine factors, by themselves, but only under their unerring 
guidance. | 

The New Testament testimony is to the Divine origin and 
qualities of “Scripture”; and “Scripture” to the writers of 
the New Testament was fundamentally, of course, the Old Tes- 
tament. In the primary passage, in which we are told that 
“every ” or “all Scripture ” is “ God-breathed,” the direct ref- 
erence is to the “ sacred writings ” which Timothy had had in 
knowledge since his infancy, and these were, of course, just the 
sacred books of the Jews (2 Tim. ii. 16). What is explicit here 
is implicit in all the allusions to inspired Scriptures in the New 
Testament. Accordingly, it is frequently said that our entire 
testimony to the inspiration of Scripture concerns the Old Tes- 
tament alone. In many ways, however, this is overstated. Our 
present concern is not with the extent of “ Scripture’ but with 
the nature of “Scripture”; and we cannot present here the 
considerations which justify extending to the New Testament 
the inspiration which the New Testament writers attribute to 
the Old Testament. It will not be out of place, however, to 
point out simply that the New Testament writers obviously 
themselves made this extension. They do not for an instant 
imagine themselves, as ministers of a new covenant, less in 
possession of the Spirit of God than the ministers of the old 
covenant: they freely recognize, indeed, that they have no suf- 
ficiency of themselves, but they know that God has made them 
sufficient (2 Cor. il. 5.6). They prosecute their work of pro- 
claiming the gospel, therefore, in full confidence that they 
speak “by the Holy Spirit” (1 Pet. i. 12), to whom they at- 
tribute both the matter and form of their teaching (1 Cor. 11. 
13). They, therefore, speak with the utmost assurance of their 
teaching (Gal. i. 7.8); and they issue commands with the com- 
pletest authority (1 Thess. iv. 2.14; 2 Thess. ili. 6.12), making 
it, indeed, the test of whether one has the Spirit that he should 
recognize what they demand as commandments of God (1 Cor. 
xiv. 37). It would be strange, indeed, if these high claims were 


110 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


made for their oral teaching and commandments exclusively. 
In point of fact, they are made explicitly also for their written 
injunctions. It was “the things” which Paul was “ writing,” 
the recognition of which as commands of the Lord, he makes 
the test of a Spirit-led man (1 Cor. xiv. 37). It is his “ word by 

this epistle,’” obedience to which he makes the condition of 
Christian communion (2 Thess. iii. 14). There seems involved 
in such an attitude toward their own teaching, oral and writ- 
ten, a claim on the part of the New Testament writers to some- 
thing very much like the “ inspiration ” which they attribute 
to the writers of the Old Testament. 

And all doubt is dispelled when we observe the New Testa- 
ment writers placing the writings of one another in the same 
category of “ Scripture ” with the books of the Old Testament. 
The same Paul who, in 2 Tim. iii. 16, declared that ‘ every’ or 
‘all scripture is God-breathed’ had already written in 1 Tim. 
v. 18: “ For the scripture saith, Thou shall not muzzle the ox 
when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of 
his hire.” The first clause here is derived from Deuteronomy 
and the second from the Gospel of Luke, though both are cited 
as together constituting, or better, forming part of the “ Scrip- 
ture’ which Paul adduces as so authoritative as by its mere 
citation to end all strife. Who shall say that, in the declaration 
of the later epistle that “all” or “ every” Scripture is God- 
breathed, Paul did not have Luke, and, along with Luke, what- 
ever other new books he classed with the old under the name of 
Scripture, in the back of his mind, along with those old books 
which Timothy had had in his hands from infancy? And the 
same Peter who declared that every “ prophecy of scripture ”’ 
was the product of men who spoke “ from God,” being ‘ borne’ 
by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet. i. 21), in this same epistle (ii. 16), 
places Paul’s Epistles in the category of Scripture along with 
whatever other books deserve that name. For Paul, says he, 
wrote these epistles, not out of his own wisdom, but “ accord- 
ing to the wisdom given to him,” and though there are some 
things in them hard to be understood, yet it is only “ the igno- 
rant and unstedfast ’ who wrest these difficult passages — as 


INSPIRATION 111 


what else could be expected of men who wrest “ also the other 
Scriptures ” (obviously the Old Testament is meant) — “ unto 
their own destruction” ? Is it possible to say that Peter could 
not have had these epistles of Paul also lurking somewhere in 
the back of his mind, along with “ the other scriptures,” when 
he told his readers that every “ prophecy of scripture ” owes its 
origin to the prevailing operation of the Holy Ghost? What 
must be understood in estimating the testimony of the New 
Testament writers to the inspiration of Scripture is that 
“Scripture ” stood in their minds as the title of a unitary body 
of books, throughout the gift of God through His Spirit to His 
people; but that this body of writings was at the same time 
understood to be a growing aggregate, so that what is said of it 
applies to the new books which were being added to it as the 
Spirit gave them, as fully as to the old books which had come 
down to them from their hoary past. It is a mere matter of de- 
tail to determine precisely what new books were thus included 
by them in the category “Scripture.” They tell us some of 
them themselves. Those who received them from their hands 
tell us of others. And when we put the two bodies of testimony 
together we find that they constitute just our New Testament. 
It is no pressure of the witness of the writers of the New Tes- 
tament to the inspiration of the Scripture, therefore, to look 
upon it as covering the entire body of “Scriptures,” the new 
books which they were themselves adding to this aggregate, as 
well as the old books which they had received as Scripture 
from the fathers. Whatever can lay claim by just right to the 
appellation of ‘“ Scripture,” as employed in its eminent sense 
by those writers, can by the same just right lay claim to the 
“inspiration ” which they ascribe to this Scripture.” 


LiterRAturRE. — J. Gerhard, “ Loci Theolog.,”’ Locus I; F. Turretin, 
“TInstit.Theol.,” Locus II; B. de Moor, “ Comm. in J. Marckii Comp.,” 
cap. 11; C. Hodge, ‘“‘ Syst. Theol.,”” New York, 1871, I, 151-86; Henry 
B. Smith, “ The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” New York, 1855, 
new ed., Cincinnati, 1891; A. Kuyper, “ Encyclopedie der heilige 
Godgeleerdheid,” 1888-89, II, 347 ff., ET; “ Enc of Sacred Theol.,” 


112 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


New York, 1898, 341-563; also “‘ De Schrift het woord Gods,” Tiel, 
1870; H. Bavinck, “ Gereformeerde Dogmatiek?,” Kampen, 1906, I, 
406-527; R. Haldane, ‘“ The Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures 
Established,’ Edinburgh, 1830; J. T. Beck, “ Einleitung in das Sys- 
tem der christlichen Lehre,’ Stuttgart, 1838, 2d ed., 1870; A. G. 
Rudelbach, “ Die Lehre von der Inspiration der heil. Schrift,” Zevt- 
schrift fiir die gesammte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche, 1840, 
1, 1841, 1, 1842, 1; S. R. L. Gaussen, “ Théopneustie ou inspiration 
pléniére des saintes écritures?,” Paris, 1842, ET by E. N. Kirk, New 
York, 1842; also “ Theopneustia; the Plenary Inspiration of the 
Holy Scriptures,’ David Scott’s tr., reédited and revised by B. W. 
Carr, with a preface by C. H. Spurgeon, London, 1888; William Lee, 
“The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” Donellan Lecture, 1852, 
New York, 1857; James Bannerman, “ Inspiration: the Infallible 
Truth and Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures,’”’ Edinburgh, 
1865; F. L. Patton, ‘“ The Inspiration of the Scriptures,” Philadel- 
phia, 1869 (reviewing Lee and Bannerman); Charles Elliott, “A 
Treatise on the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,” Edinburgh, 
1877; A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, ‘“‘ Inspiration,” Presbyterran 
Review, April, 1881, also tract, Philadelphia, 1881; R. Watts, “‘ The 
Rule of Faith and the Doctrine of Inspiration,” Edinburgh, 1885; 
A. Cave, “ The Inspiration of the OT Inductively Considered,” Lon- 
don, 1888; B. Manly, “The Bible Doctrine of Inspiration,’ New 
York, 1888; W. Rohnert, ‘‘ Die Inspiration der heiligen Schrift und 
ihre Bestreiter,” Leipzig, 1889; A. W. Dieckhoff, “ Die Inspiration 
~ und Irrthumlosigkeit der heiligen Schrift,” Leipzig, 1891; J. Wichel- 
haus, ‘‘ Die Lehre der heiligen Schrift,” Stuttgart, 1892; J. Mac- 
gregor, ‘The Revelation and the Record,’ Edinburgh, 1893; J. 
Urquhart, ‘ The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures,” 
London, 1895; C. Pesch, ‘‘De Inspiratione Sacrae Scripturae,” 
Freiburg, 1906; James Orr, “ Revelation and Inspiration,” London, 
1910. 


Vv 


poORIRTURE, LORY SCRIPTURES,” IN THE 
NEW TESTAMENT 





“SCRIPTURE,” “THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE 
NEW TESTAMENT! 


THE scope of this article does not permit the full discus- 
sion in it of the employment of Scripture, or of the estimate 
put upon Scripture, by either our Lord or the writers of the 
New Testament. It is strictly limited to what is necessary to 
exhibit the use of the terms ‘Scripture,’ ‘The Scriptures,’ in 
the New Testament and the more immediate implications 
of this use. 

Abas use was an inheritance, not an invention. The idea 
oY a ‘canon’ of ‘Sacred Scriptures,’ and, with the idea, the 

‘canon’ itself were derived by Christianity from Judaism. 
The Jews possessed a body of writings, consisting of ‘ Law, 
Prophets ae (other) Scriptures (K’thubhim),’ though they 
were often called for brevity’s sake merely ‘the Law and 
the Prophets’ or even simply ‘the Law.’ These ‘Sacred 
Scriptures”’ (wpm ‘3n3), — or, as they were very frequently 
pregnantly called, this ‘Scripture’ (=n="), or these ‘Books’ 
(a207) or, even sometimes, in the singular, this ‘Book’ 
(p05) — were looked upon as all drawing their origin from 
divine inspiration and as possessed in all their extent of 
divine authority. Whatever stood written in them was a 
word of God, and was therefore referred to indifferently as 
something which ‘the Scripture says’ ("Pp 78 or 3N57 7X 
or xp an>) or ‘the All-merciful says’ (s2mm 7x), or even 
simply ‘He says’ ("#8 xn 72 or merely 7") — that God is 
the speaker being too fully understood to require explicit 
expression. Every precept or dogma was supposed to be 
grounded in Scriptural teaching, and possessed authority 
only as buttressed by a Scriptural passage, introduced com- 


1 A condensation of this article was published in Dr. Hastings’ “ Dictionary 
of Christ and the Gospels,’”’ sub voc. Scripture. It has been thought desirable 
after this interval to print the entire article. (From The Princeton Theological 
Review v. VIII, 1910, pp. 561-612.) 

115 


116 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


monly by one of the formulas, ‘for it is said’ (m#s2w), or ‘as 1t 
is written’ (s'n25 or >n2">), though of course a great variety 
of less frequently occurring similar formulas of adduction 
are found.” 

Greek-speaking Jews naturally tended merely to repro- 
duce in their new language the designations and forms of 
adduction of the sacred books current among their compa- 
triots. This process was no doubt facilitated by the existence 
among the Greeks themselves of a pregnant legislative use of 
ypadw, ypadn, yeauua, in which they were already freighted 
with a certain implication of authority.® But it is very easy 
to make too much of this (as e. g., Deissmann does), and the 
simple fact should not be obscured that the Greek-speaking 
Jews follow the usage of the Jews in general. It may no doubt 
very possibly be due in part to his Graecizing tendencies that 
the Scriptures are spoken of by Josephus apparently with 
predilection as the ‘‘Sacred Books’’ (tepat GiBror or tepa 
6.Brta) or ‘‘ Sacred Scriptures”’ (tepd ypauuara) or more fully 
still as the ‘‘ Books of the Sacred Scriptures”’ (ai tep@v ypadav 
GiBror); and quoted with the formula yéypamra: or more fre- 
quently avayéypamrra: — all of which are forms which would 
be familiar to Greek ears, with a general implication of au- 
thority.* Perhaps, however, the influence of the Greek usage 
is more clearly traceable in certain passages of the LX X in 
which ypa@n may seem to hover between the pregnant Greek 

2 Edersheim, “Life and Times of Jesus,” etc., Ed. 1, I. p. 187, note 2; ef., 
in general, Surenhusius, “WM "BD sive BiBdros xaraddXay7fs (1713), pp. 1-36; 
Dépke, ‘“Hermeneutik der NT. Schriftsteller”’ (1829), I. pp. 60-69; Pinner, 
Translation of the Tract Berachoth, Introd. p. 21b; Zunz, ‘‘ Gottesdienstliche 
Vortrige der Juden,” p. 44; Weber, “ Jiidische Theologie”’ (1897) § 20, p. 80 segq.; 
Schirer, ‘Jewish People” II. i. p. 311; Buhl, “Canon and Text,” §2; Ryle, 
‘Canon of O. T.,’’ Excursus E. 

8 Cf. the passages in the Lexicons, and especially in Deissmann, “Bible 
Studies,” 112, 249, and Cremer, “Biblico-Theol. Lex.” sub voce. especially the 
later eds. 

4Cf. Deissmann, “Bible Studies,” p. 149, note 4. For Josephus’ use of 
Scripture, in general, see Gerlach, ‘Die Weissagungen d. AT. in d. Schrift. d. 
¥. Josephus (1863), and Dienstfertig, ‘Die Prophetologie in d. Religionsphi- 


losophie d. ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts”’ (1892), the latter of whom 
discusses Philo’s ideas of Scripture also. 





“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 117 


sense of authoritative ‘ordinance,’ and the pregnant Hebrew 
sense of authoritative ‘Scripture.’ When, for example, we 
read in I Chron. xv. 15, ‘* And the sons of the Levites took 
upon themselves with staves the Ark of God, ws évereiNato 
Mwvons &v OYw Beod KaTa THY ypadny,’’ we scarcely know 
whether we are to translate the xara Tv ypadnyv (which has 
no equivalent in the Hebrew) by “‘ according to the precept,”’ 
or by “‘ according to the Scriptures.’’? Something of the same 
hesitancy is felt with reference to the similar passages: 
II Chron. xxx. 5, ‘‘ Because the multitude had not done it 
lately xara THY ypadnv’’ (= sinsz); II Chron. xxx. 18, ‘‘ But 
they ate the passover wapa rv ypadnv’’ (= sinzD X53); 
II Esdr. vi. 18, ‘‘ And they established the priests in their 
courses and the Levites in their divisions for the service of 
God in Jerusalem, xara 77v ypadny Bib\ov Mwvon”’ (= an23 
mv pe); I Chron. xxviii. 19, ‘‘ All these things David gave 
to Solomon é& ypad7 xerpos Kupiov’’ (= mint 79 sn>3): IT Chron. 
xxxv. 4, ‘‘ Prepare yourselves... kata tHv ypadny Aavid... 
Kal dua xelpos Datwuwv’’ (= rib smoen1 717 sm22); I Esdr.i. 4, 
“kata THY ypapdyy Aavid’’ xr; and especially the very instruc- 
tive passage ITI Esdr. vii. 22, ‘‘ For which there is no ypad7.”’ 
Similarly in II Esdr. i. 2, ‘‘xara ta yeypaupéeva (= 31ND) in 
the law of Moses,” ra yeypauyéeva might very well appeal to 
a Greek ear as simply ‘‘the prescriptions’’; and there are a 
series of passages in which yéyparrat might very readily be 
taken in the Greek sense of ‘‘it is prescribed,’’ such as Josh. 
Perera viileo lon eWingsixiv. O,ixxn 21) 1 Chron: xxi118; 
xxv. 4, Neh. x. 34, (85), 35, (87), Tob. i. 6. Should this inter- 
pretation be put on these passages, there would be left in the 
LXX little unalloyed trace of the peculiar Jewish usage of 
pregnantly referring to Scripture as such by that term, and 
citing it with the authoritative ‘It is written.’ For clear in- 
stances of the former usage we should have to go to TV Macc. 
xvill. 14, and of the latter to Dan. ix. 13, and to the Greek 
additions to Job (xli. 18).° Philo on the other hand is abso- 


5 TV Mace. xviii. 14, “‘And he reminded you of ‘Heatov ypadjv which says, 
Though you pass through fire, &c.’’; Dan. ix. 18, ‘‘ Kaas yeyparra: in the law 


118 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


lutely determined in his usage by his inherited Jewish habits 
of thought. With him the Sacred books are by predilection a 
body of divine Oracles and are designated ordinarily either 
6 \dyos with various adjectival enhancements — ‘ prophetic,’ 
‘divine,’ ‘sacred’ — or, perhaps even more commonly, ‘“‘the 
Oracles,” or even “‘the Oracle,” (oi xpnopol, Ta NOyLa, 6 xpNo- 
uos, 70 AOyvov, or even possibly the anarthrous xpyopos, Ndyuor) ; 
and are adduced (as is also most frequently the case in the 
Mishna, cf. Edersheim as cited) rather with the formula, 
‘* As it is said,’ than with the “‘ As it is written’’ which would 
more naturally convey to Greek ears the sense of authorita- 
tive declarations. Of course Philo also speaks on occasion (for 
this too is a truly Jewish mode of speech) of these ‘‘ Oracles’”’ 
as ‘‘the Sacred Books”’ (ta tepat BiBdou. “De Vita Moysis,”’ iii. 
23, Mangey ii. 163; “Quod det. pot. insid.” 44, Mangey i. 
222), or as ‘“‘the Sacred Scriptures”’ (ai tepwrarat ypadat, “ De 
Abrah.”’ i, Mangey ii. 2; iepai ypadat, ““ Quis rerum div. heres.”’ 
32, Mangey i. 495; 7a tepa ypaupara, “ Legat. ad Caium,” 29, 
Mangey ii. 574); and adduces them with the pregnant yéypar- 
tat. But the comparative infrequency of these designations in 
his pages is very noticeable.°® 

What it is of importance especially to note is that there 
was nothing left for Christianity to invent in the way of 
designating the Sacred Books taken over from the Jewish 
Church pregnantly as “Scripture,” and currently adducing 
their authority with the pregnant ‘It is written.’ The Chris- 
tian writers merely continued in their entirety the established 
usages of the Synagogue in this matter, already prepared to 
their hands in Hebrew and Greek alike. There is probably 
not a single mode of alluding to or citing Scripture in all the 


of Moses, all this evil is come upon us”’; Job xhi. 18, ‘And Job died an old man 
and full of days, yéypamrra 6¢ that he shall rise again along with those whom 
the Lord will raise.” 

6 Philo’s designations of Scripture have been collected by Hornemann, ‘‘ Ob- 
servationes ad illustr. doctr. de V. T. ex Philone”’ (1775); more briefly by 
Eichhorn, ‘‘Einleitung in d. A. T.;”’ and less satisfactorily by Ryle, ‘‘ Philo and 
Holy Scripture.”’ Cf. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, x. 504 (July, 1899) 
and xi. 235 (April, 1900). 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 119 


New Testament which does not find its exact parallel among 
the Rabbis.’ The New Testament so far evinces itself a thor- 
oughly Jewish book. The several terms made use of in it, to 
be sure, as it was natural they should be, are employed with 
some sensitiveness to their inherent implications as Greek 
words; and the Greek legislative use of some of them gave 
them no doubt peculiar fitness for the service asked of them, 
and lent them a special significance to Gentile readers. But 
the application made of them by the New Testament writers 
nevertheless has its roots set in the soil of Jewish thought, 
from which they derive a fuller and deeper meaning than 
their most pregnant classical usage could accord them. Among 
these terms those which more particularly claim our atten- 
tion at the moment are the two substantives ypady and 
yeayya, with their various qualifications, and the cognate 
verbal forms employed in citing writings pregnantly desig- 
nated by these substantives. There is nothing in the New 
Testament usage of these terms peculiar to itself; and through- 
out the New Testament any differences that may be observed 
in their employment by the several writers are indicative 
merely of varying habits of speech within the limits of one 
well-settled general usage. 

To the New Testament writers as to other Jews, the 
Sacred Books of what was in their circle now called the Old 
Covenant (II Cor. ii. 14), described according to their con- 
tents as “‘the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Lk. xxiv. 
44) — or more briefly as ‘‘the Law and the Prophets”’ (Matt. 
vim uke xviee LO eclasActsi xxvinle 23, Lk xvi.e29-31) or 
merely as ‘‘the Law” (Jno. x. 34, I Cor. xiv. 21) or even “the 
Prophets,” (Rom. xvi. 26),> — were, when thought of accord- 
ing to their nature, a body of ‘‘Sacred Scriptures’’ (Rom. i. 2, 
II Tim. ii. 16), or, with the omission of the unnecessary be- 

7 This has been shown in detail by, for example, Surenhusius and Dépke, as 
cited above. 

8 Sometimes the whole is spoken of, in accordance with its character as reve- 
lation, as “‘prophetical Scriptures” or ‘‘the Scriptures of the prophets”’ (cf. Matt. 
li. 23, xi. 18, xxvi. 56; Lk. i. 70, xviii. 31, xxiv. 25, 27; Acts ili. 24, xiii. 27; Rom. i. 
2, Xvi. 26). 


120 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


cause well-understood adjective, by way of eminence, “‘the 
Scriptures,’ ‘“‘the Scripture,”’ ‘‘Scripture,”’ (Matt. xxi. 29, 
Jno. x. 35, I Pet. ii. 6). For employment in this designation, 
either of the substantives, ypad7 or ypauya, would apparently 
have been available; although of course with slightly differ- 
ing suggestions arising from the differing implications of the 
forms and the respective general usages of the words. In Philo 
and Josephus the more usual of the two in this application is 
ypauma, or, to speak more exactly, ypauuara, — for although 
yoda is sometimes in later Greek so employed in the singu- 
lar ° it is in the plural that this term most properly denotes 
that congeries of alphabetical signs which constitutes a book 
(cf. Latin, literae). In the New Testament on the contrary, this 
form is rare. The complete phrase, ieod ypaupata, which is 
found also both in Josephus (e.g. “‘ Antt.’’ proem. 3; iii. 7, 6; x. 
10, 4; xiii. 5,8) and in Philo (e. g., ‘‘ De Vita Moys.’’i. 2, ‘‘ Legat. 
ad Caium,” 29) occurs in II Tim. iii. 15 as the current title of 
the Sacred Books, freighted with all its implications as such, 
or rather with those implications emphasized by its anar- 
throus employment, and particularly adverted to in the im- 
mediate context (verse 16).’° Elsewhere in the New Testament, 
however, ypaupara scarcely occurs as a designation of Scrip- 
ture. In Jno. v. 47, ‘‘ But if ye believe not his (Moses’) writ- 
ings, how shall ye believe my (Jesus’) words ?’’ to be sure we 
must needs hesitate before we refuse to give to it this its 
most pregnant sense, especially since there appears to be an 
implication present that it would be more reprehensible to 
refuse trust to these ‘‘ writings”’ of Moses than to the ‘“‘ words”’ 


* Strabo, “Geog.” i. 7, ““Hecataeus left a yodupya believed to be his from 
his other ypa¢7.”’ Callimachus, “ Epigr.’”’ xxiv. 4, ‘‘Plato’s ré wep! wuxfs yoduma. 
In the Church Fathers 76 6etov (or iepdv) ypaupa occurs frequently for ‘Holy 
Scripture,” e. g. Greg. Thaumat. in “Orig. orat. paneg. VI. ad fin.;’’ Epiphan. 
“Adv. Her.’ III, ii. (Ixxx. A.); Cyr. Al. ‘‘Epistula 50” (formerly 44): in Cyr. Al. 
“De Adver.” p. 44, the N. T. is the véov ypdumua; in Eus. h. e. x. 4fin, rv rerrapwr 
ebayyeNiwy TO ypaupa is the Gospels, ete. 

10 H. Holtzmann accordingly accurately comments on this passage: ‘“‘The 
writer shares the Jewish view of the purely supernatural origin of Scripture in 
its strictest form, according to which ‘theopneustie’ is ascribed directly to the 
Scriptures.” (“N. T. Theologie”’ ii. 261). 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 121 


of Jesus Himself. But on the whole, the tendency of the most 
recent exegesis to see in “his writings” here little more than 
another way of saying ‘“‘ what he wrote,’’ seems justified. The 
only other passage which can come into consideration is 
Jno. vil. 15, ‘‘ How knoweth this man ypauuara, not having 
learned ?’”’ in which some commentators still see a reference 
to ‘‘the iepa yoauuara (II Tim. iii. 15) from which the Jewish 
ypauparets derived their title’’ (Th. Zahn, ‘ Einleitung,’ ii. 99). 
Most readers, however, doubtless will agree that ‘‘letters’’ 
in general are more naturally meant (cf. Acts xxvi. 24 and 
Meyer’s judicious note). Practically, therefore, ypadupa is 
eliminated; and ypad7, yeadai, in their varied uses, remain 
the sole terms employed in the New Testament in the sense 
of ‘‘Scripture,” ‘‘Scriptures.”’ 

This term, in singular or plural, occurs in the New Testa- 
ment some fifty times (Gospels twenty-three, Acts seven, 
Catholic Epistles six, Paul fourteen) and in every case bears 
the technical sense in which it refers to the Scriptures by way 
of eminence, the Scriptures of the Old Testament. This state- 
ment requires only such modification as is involved in noting 
that from II Pet. iii. 16 (cf. I Tim. v. 18) it becomes apparent 
that the New Testament writers were perfectly aware that 
the term “‘Scripture’’ in its high sense was equally applicable 
to their own writings as to the books included in the Old 
Testament; or, to be more precise, that it included within 
itself along with the writings which constituted the Old Tes- 
tament those also which they were producing, as sharing with 
the Old Testament books the high functions of the authori- 
tative written word of God.” No modification needs:to be 

11 For the currency of this sense, cf. G. Milligan, “Selections from the Greek 
Papyri,”’ p. 58, where commenting on the phrase 7 idéros ypauuara, he remarks: 
“The phrase occurs in countless papyrus documents written either in whole or 
in part by a scribe on behalf of the ‘unlettered’ author. Cf. the use of the corre- 
sponding adjective a&ypdauparos in Acts iv. 13 (ef. Jno. vil. 15, Ac. xxvi. 24) = ‘un- 
acquainted with literature or Rabbinical learning.’”’ 

12 On the significance of the plural ai ypadai in 2 Pet. i. 16, see below 
p. 132. There is no justification for attempting to lower the high implication of 


the term here (e. g. Huther, Spitta, Mayor in loc., Ladd “Doct. of Sacred Scrip- 
ture,” I. p. 211, note). The inclusion of New Testament books within the category 


122 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


made for the benefit of the few passages in which words are 
adduced as Scriptural which are not easily identified in the 
Old Testament text.’® The only passages which come strictly 
under consideration here are Jno. vii. 38 and Jas. iv. 5, to 
which may be added as essentially of the same kind (although 
the term ypad7n does not occur in connection with them), 
I Cor. ii. 9, and Lk. ix. 49. It is enough to remark as to these 
passages that, however difficult it may be to identify with 
certainty the passages referred to, there is no reason to doubt 
that Old Testament passages were in mind and were intended 
to be referred to in every case (see Mayor on Jas. iv. 5, and 
cf. Lightfoot on I Cor. ii. 9, Westcott on Jno. vii. 38, Godet 
on Lk. xi. 49). In twenty out of the fifty instances in which 
ypabn, ypadati occur in the New Testament, it is the plural 
form which is employed: and in all these cases except two the 
article is present, — ai ypadat the well-known Scriptures of 
the Jewish people, or rather of the writer and his readers 
alike. The two exceptions, moreover, are exceptions in ap- 
pearance only, since in both cases adjectival definitions are 
present, raising ypadai to the same height to which the article 
would have elevated it, and giving it the value of a proper 
name (ypadal ayia, Rom. i. 2, here first in extant literature; 
ypadat, mpopytixat, Rom. xvi. 26). The singular form occurs 
some thirty times, and likewise with the article in every in- 
stance except these four: John xix. 37 ‘another Scripture’; 
II Tim. iii, 16 ‘every Scripture,’ or ‘all Scripture’; I Pet. ii. 6 
‘it is contained in Scripture’; II Pet. i. 20 ‘no prophecy of 
Scripture.’ Here too the exceptions, obviously, are only ap- 
parent, the noun being definite in every case whether by the 
effect of its adjunct, or as the result of its use as a quasi- 
proper-name. The distribution of the singular and plural forms 
is perhaps worth noting. In Acts the singular (8) and plural 
(4) occur with almost equal frequency: the plural prevails in 
the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. plural only; Mk. plural 2 to 1; 


of ‘Scripture’ is witnessed also in 1 Tim. v. 18, Ep. Barnabas iv. 14, 2 Clem. 
Rom. ii. 4, and in the later Fathers passim. It is as early as literary Christianity. 
18 See them in Hiihn, “ Die alttestamentlichen Citate,’”’ 270. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 123 


Lk. 3 to 1), while the singular prevails in the rest of the New 
Testament (Jno. 11 to 1; James 3 to 1; Peter 2 to 1, Paul 9 
to 5). In the Gospels, the plural form occurs exclusively in 
Matthew, prevailingly in Mark and Luke, and rarely in John, 
of whom thesingular is characteristic. The usage of the Gospels 
in detail is as follows: aiypadai, Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29, xxvi. 54, 
56, Mk. xii. 24, xiv. 49, Lk. xxiv. 27, 32, 45, Jno. v. 39; 7 
oaon Vike xl Ow lkaive 2t Jnoe ll. 22) Vil3s 420 xo: 
xl. 18, xvil. 12, xix. 24, 28, 36, xx. 9; anarthrous ypa¢y, Jno. 
xix. 37 (but with érépa). No distinction is traceable between 
the usage of the Evangelists themselves and that of the Lord 
as reported by them. Matthew and Mark do not on their own 
account use the term at all, but only report it as used by our 
Lord: in Luke and John on the other hand it occurs not only 
in reports of our Lord’s sayings (Lk. iv. 21, Jno. v. 39, vii. 38, 
42, x. 35, xiii. 18, xvii. 12), and of the sayings of others (Lk. 
xxlv. 32), but also in the narrative of the Evangelists (Lk. 
MIVA (Ory NOs lee, X1X 024,125) 50; 045 XX.9)) Loour Lord 
is ascribed the use indifferently of the plural (Matt. xxi. 42, 
Xxll. 29, xxvi. 54, 56, Mk. xii. 24, xiv. 49, Jno. v. 39) and the 
Sid ata Viker Xie Ow Lkeiv 21d NOm VilwoS 642ex 4 O0, a xIil 
18, xvi. 12), and that in all the forms of application in which 
the term occurs in the Gospels. So far as His usage of the term 
‘‘Seripture’’ is concerned, our Lord is represented by the 
Evangelists, thus, as occupying precisely the same stand- 
point and employing precisely the same forms of designation, 
with precisely the same implications, which characterized 
the devout Jewish usage of His day. ‘‘Jesus,”’ says B. Weiss, 
therefore, with substantial truth, ‘‘acknowledged the Scrip- 
tures of the Old Testament in their entire extent and their 
complete sacredness. ‘The Scripture cannot be broken,’ He 
says (Jno. x. 35) and forthwith grounds His argument upon 
its language.’”’ 


4 “Tas Leben Jesu,” I. 441-442, E. T. II. 62-63. Cf. Haupt, “Die alttest. 
Citate in d. vier Evang.”’ pp. 201-203: ‘‘We recognize first what no doubt 
scarcely requires proof, that Jesus treats the Old Testament in its entirety as the 
Word of God. Down to the smallest letter and most casual word (Matt. v. 18; Jno. 
x. 34) it is to Him truth, and that, religious truth.” ‘An isolated expression of 


124 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


That we may gather the precise significance of 7 ypad7, 
at ypadai, as a designation of the Scriptures, it will be well to 
attend somewhat more closely to the origin of the term in 
Greek speech and to the implications it gathered to itself in 
its application to literary documents. Its history in its liter- 
ary application does not seem to have been precisely the same 
as that of its congener, To ypaupua, Ta yoaupata. paupya ap- 
pears to have become current first in this reference as the 
appropriate appellation of an alphabetical sign, and to have 
grown gradually upward from this lowly employment to des- 
ignate a document of less or greater extent, because such 
documents are ultimately made up of alphabetical signs. Al- 
though, therefore, the singular, 7o ypauua, came to be used 
of any written thing — from a simple alphabetical character 
up to complete works, or even unitary combinations of works, 
like the Scriptures, — it is apparently when applied to writ- 
ings, most naturally employed of brief pieces like short in- 
scriptions or proverbs, or to the shorter portions of documents 
such as the clauses of treaties, and the like; although it is also 
used of those longer formal sections of literary works which 
are more commonly designated technically ‘‘ Books.” It is 
rather the plural, Ta ypadupuara, which seems to suggest itself 
most readily not only for extended treatises, but indeed for 
complete documents of all kinds. When so employed, the 
plural form is accordingly not to be pressed. Such a phrase as 
““Moses’ ypaupara’’ (Jno. v. 47) for example, need not imply 
that Moses wrote more than one “ work’’; it would rather 
mass whatever ‘writings’ of Moses are in mind into a single 
‘writing,’ and would most naturally mean just, say, ‘‘the 
Pentateuch.’’ Such a phrase as iepa ypaupyara (II Tim. iii. 15), 


precisely the book most subjective in its character in the whole canon is made use 
of and applied as meeting the case.” Cf. also Franke, “‘ Das Alt-Test. bei Johan.” 
pp. 46, 48; H. Holtzmann, “N. T. Theologie,” I. 45, 115; P. Gennrich, “‘ Der 
Kampf um die Schrift,’ &c. 1898, p. 72: “In this late-Jewish, wholly unhistorical 
tradition, Jesus Himself and the oldest Christian authors were brought up; for 
them the whole Old Testament literature is already inspired (@eéxvevaros 2 Tim. 
ili. 16), every word, even those of the Psalms and of the Historical Books, an 
oracle.” 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 125 


again, need not bring the Old Testament books before our 
contemplation in their plurality, as a “ Divine library’”’; but 
more probably conceives them together in the mass, as con- 
stituting a single sacred document, thought of as a unitary 
whole. On the other hand, ypad7, in its literary application, 
seems to have sprung somewhat lightly across the interven- 
ing steps, to designate which ypdyua is most appropriately 
used, and to have been carried at once over from the ‘ writing’ 
in the sense of the script to the ‘writing’ in the sense of the 
scripture or document. Although therefore it of course ex- 
hibits more applications parallel with those of ypdauua than of 
any other term, its true synonymy in its higher literary use 
is rather with such terms as 77 BiGXos (76 BiGAtov) and 6 dyos, 
in common with which it most naturally designates a com- 
plete literary piece, whether ‘‘ Treatise’’ or ‘‘ Book.’’ Each of 
these terms, of course, preserves in all its applications some- 
thing of the flavor of the primitive conception which was 
bound up with it. When thought of from the material point 
of view, as, so to say, so much paper, or, to speak more re- 
spectfully, from the point of sight of its extent, a literary 
work was apt therefore to be spoken of as a BiGXos (B.GNior). 
When thought of as a rational product, thought presented in 
words, it was apt to be spoken of as a Noyos. Intermediate 
between the two stood ypad7n (vypauua) which was apt to come 
to the lips when the work was thought of as, so to speak, so 
much ‘writing.’ As between the two terms, ypad7 and ypaupa, 
Dr. Westcott (on Jno. v. 47) suggests that the latter ‘marks 
rather the specific form,’ the former ‘the scope of the record’ ; 
and this seems so far just that to ypauya there clings a strong 
flavor of the ‘letters’ of which the document is made up, 
while ypady looks rather to the completeness of the ‘scrip- 
ture.’ To both alike so much of the implication of specific 
form clings as to lend them naturally to national and legisla- 
tiveemployment with theimplication of the “ certascriptio.”’® 


15 We meet the two words in a single context in Strabo, “Geog.” iI. 7 (Ed. 
Didot, p. 5, line 50, seq.) where we are told that Hecataeus “‘left a yeauya which is 
believed to be his ék rijs &\Ans abrod ypadjs.”’ Here ypauua appears to be used where 


126 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


To put the general matter in a nutshell, Bi6dos (B:BXiov) may 
perhaps be said to be the more exact word for the ‘book’; 
ypabhn (ypauua) for the ‘document’ inscribed in the ‘book’; 
oyos for the ‘treatise’ which the ‘document’ records; while 
as between ypady and ypauua, ypauua, preserving thestronger 
material flavor, gravitates somewhat towards BiBdos (B.BXiLov) 
while ypad7 looks somewhat upwards towards \oyos. When 
in the development of the publishers’ trade, the “‘ great-book- 
system’’ of making books gave way for the purposes of con- 
venience to the ‘‘small-book-system,”’ and long works came 
to be broken up into ‘ Books,’’ each of which constituted 
a ‘volume,’ ’® these ‘‘Books’’ attached to themselves this 
whole series of designations and were called alike, — in each 
case with its own appropriate implications — BiBror, (B.GALa) 
ypapai (ypaupara) and doyor: BiGAor (B.GAia) because each 
book was written on a separate roll of papyrus and consti- 
tuted one ‘paper’ or ‘volume’; ypadai (ypauuara) because 
each book was a separate document, a distinct ‘scripture’ ; 
and \déyou because each book was a distinct ‘discourse’ or 
rational work. Smaller sections than these ‘‘ Books’’ were 
properly called zepioxas, Tomous, xwpia, ypauwata (which last 
is the appropriate word for ‘ clauses’) but very seldom if ever 
in the classics, ypadas.”’ 

The current senses of these several terms are, of course, 
more or less reflected as they occur in the pages of the New 
Testament. In the case of some of them, the New Testament 
usage simply continues that of profane Greek; in the case of 
others, new implications enter in which, while not supersed- 
ing, profoundly modify their fundamental significance; in yet 
other cases, there is a development of usage beyond what is 
traceable in profane Greek. The passages in which two or 


the mind is on the concrete object, and ypa¢% where it rests rather on the con- 
tents: that is, ypa4upa seems to reach down towards BiBXos (6.BXlov), ypadh upwards 
towards doyos. Does the singular ypa¢7y bear here a plural or ‘‘collective’”’ sense 
(Latin version: ex ceteris ejus scriptis)? 

16 Cf, Birt, “Das antike Buchwesen,” 479. 

17 Cf., however, Eur. “Hipp.” 1311, where Phaedra is said to have written 
pevdeis ypadas which may mean “‘false statements.” 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 127 


more of the terms in question are brought together are, natu- 
rally, especially instructive. When we read, for example, in 
Lk. ui. 4 seq. as yéyparrar &v BiB\w ANOywv ‘Hoatov tod rpodn- 
Tov, we perceive at once that what is quoted is a body of 
doyou which are found in written form (ypad7: cf. I Cor. xv. 
54, 6 NOYos 6 YeYpapmmevos) in a PiBdos: the BiBros is the volume 
which contains the ypad7, which conveys or, perhaps better, 
records the Adoyou. So again when we read in Lk. iv. 17 seq. 
that there was delivered to our Lord the 6:8Xiov of Isaiah, on 
opening which he found the ré7ov, where a given thing jv 
vyeypaupevoy, and then closing the 6.6\tov he remarked 7 ypad7 
airy is fulfilled in your ears, we perceive that the $.GXior is 
the concrete volume — a thing to be handled, opened and 
closed (cf. Rev. v. 3, 4, 5, x. 8, xx. 12), the manner of opening 
and closing being, of course, unrolling and rolling (Rev. vi. 
14, cf. Heb. x. 7, Birt, “‘Das antike Buchwesen,’’ 116); and 
that the ypad7 is the document written in this 6.GAtov; while 
the various parts of this ypad7 are formally ré7o, or when 
attention is directed to their essential quality as sharers in 
the authority of the whole, ypadai (cf. Acts i. 16, ‘“‘ The ypadn 
which the Holy Spirit spake through the mouth of” the 
writer). 

As might be inferred from these examples, BiGd\os and 
G.Bdtoy retain in the New Testament their current signifi- 
cations in profane Greek. Their application to sacred rather 
than to secular books in no way modified their general sense.”® 
It brought, however, to them a richness of association which 
prepared the way for that pregnant employment of them — 
beginning not indeed in the New Testament but in even 
earlier Hellenistic writings — to designate in its simple ab- 
soluteness the sacred volume, from which ultimately our 
common term “‘ The Bible”’ is supposed to have descended.” 

18 They may, of course, be applied even in profane Greek to ‘‘sacred”’ books. 
Thus a magical formula among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (Grenfell & Hunt, 
“Oxyrhynchus Papyri,’’ vi. p. 100, etc.) represents itself as an dvrliypadov tepas 


BiBdov., 
19 Ai BiBdo. (= S755") used absolutely, for the Old Testament as a whole, 


occurs in Dan. ix. 2 (cf. Driver in loc.). ‘H BiBdos absolutely for the Old Testa- 


128 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Throughout the New Testament the SiGdos or 6.6Atov when 
applied to literary entities is just the “volume,” that is to 
say, the concrete object, the ‘‘book”’ in the handleable sense. 
When we read of the GiBXos of the words of Isaiah (Lk. iu. 4), 
or of Moses (Mk. xii. 26) or of the Psalms (Lk. xx. 42, Acts 1. 
20) or of the Prophets, i. e., of the Twelve ‘‘ Minor Prophets”’ 
(Acts vil. 42), the meaning is simply that each of these writ- 
ings or collections of writings formed a single volume.” Simi- 
larly when we read of the @:8dtov of Isaiah (Lk. iv. 17) or of 
the Law (Gal. iii. 10), what is meant in each case is the vol- 
ume formed by the document or documents named. The 
Gospel of John (Jno. xx. 30, xxi. 25) and the Book of Reve- 
lation (Rev. 1. 11, xxii. 7, 9, 10, 18, 19) are spoken of as each 
a B.Bdtov again because each existed in separation as a con- 
crete unity. Accordingly BiS\o are things which may be 
burned (Acts xix. 19); 6.GAta, things which may be sprinkled 
(Heb. ix. 19) or carried about (II Tim. iv. 13), and may be 
made of parchment (II Tim. iv. 13). The Book of Life pre- 
sented itself to the imagination as a volume in which names 
may be inscribed (GiSdos, Phil. iv. 3, Rev. i. 5, xx. 15; B.6- 
Aiov, Rev. xill. 8, xvii. 8, xx. 12, xxi. 27); the Book of Destiny 
as a volume in which is set down what is to come to pass 
(BiBAtov, Heb. x. 7, Rev. v. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, x. 8). There is no 
essential difference in fundamental implication when in Matt. 
xix. 7, Mk. x. 4 6:8Xéiov is used for a “‘bill’’ of divorcement, or 
in Matt.1. 1, Gi6Xos, under the influence of the LX X, is em- 
ployed of a genealogical register. In both instances it would 


ment as a whole occurs first, apparently, in the “Letter of Aristeas’’ § 316 (cf. 
Thackeray, Jewish Quarterly Review, April, 1903, p. 391). Ta B:BAta absolutely of 
the Old Testament as a whole apparently occurs first in 2 Clem. xiv. 2 (cf. Light- 
foot in loco). It has been customary to say that from the time of Chrysostom 
(Hom. 9 in Coloss., Hom. 10 in Genesim) ra BiBdia occurs absolutely for the 
Scriptures as a whole (cf. Suicer, ‘Thesaur. Eccles.’ I. 687, 696; Reuss, “Hist. 
of the New Testament,” § 320, E. T., p. 326). This usage is already found, 
however, in Clement Alex. and in Origen (ed. Lommatsch, i. 607). On the general 
subject see the detached note at the end of this article on the terms ‘Bible,’ 
‘Holy Bible’ (page 149). 

20 Cf. Birt, “Das antike Buchwesen,” 478-481, and especially Jerome, 
“Praef. Psal.”’ and “Ep. ad Marcellam” as cited by Birt. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 129 


be understood that the document in question occupied a 
separate piece of papyrus or parchment and was therefore 
an entire “‘ paper.” 

There is a much more marked enhancement of sense ap- 
parent in the New Testament use of \oyos. In Actsi. 1, to be 
sure, it occurs in the simple classical sense of ‘‘ Book’’; Luke 
merely points to his Gospel as “the first Book” of an ex- 
tended historical treatise of which Acts is ‘‘ the second Book’’; 
and there is no implication of deeper meaning. The ordinary 
usage of \oyos, however, in the New Testament, is to express, 
in accordance with its employment in the Old Testament of 
the Prophetic word, the, or a, revelation from God, with no, 
or a very indistinct, reference to a written form. The Divine 
Word was, however, in the hands of the New Testament 
writers in a written form and allusion to this could not always 
fail. In passages like Jno. xv. 25, I Cor. xv. 54, the Aoyos that 
is cited is distinctly declared to be written: ‘“‘that the Adyos 
may be fulfilled that is written in their Law’’; ‘“‘then shall 
come to pass the Adyos that is written’’; and with these there 
may be connected such passages as Jno. xii. 38, (ef. Lk. iv. 6): 
‘‘that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled,’ 
since, although it is not expressly stated, this \oyos too was 
in the hands of the New Testament writers in a written form. 
In this usage doyos is a particular passage of Scripture viewed 
as a divine declaration. In Matt. xv. 6 (if this reading be ac- 
cepted), Mk. vii. 13 (cf. Jno. v. 38, x. 35, Rom. xiii. 9, Gal. 
v. 14) in accordance with a familiar usage (cf. Ex. xxxiv. 28, 
oi déxa \dyou), the specific reference is to a divine command- 
ment; but this commandment is thrown up in sharp contrast 
with ‘‘tradition’’ and is thought of distinctly as a written 
one. It is only in a passage like II Pet. 1. 19 that \oyos comes 
to mean the entire Old Testament, after the fashion of Philo,” 
with the emphasis upon its divine character: that by ‘‘the 
prophetic word’’ here is meant not the prophetic portion of 


21H. g. ‘De Plantat. Noe,” 28, Mangey i. 347: ‘The prophetic word (6 rpodn- 
TiKds Novos) seems to dignify the number four often throughout the voyofecias, and 
especially in the catalogue of the creation of the universe.” 


130 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Scripture but the Scriptures as a whole, conceived in accord- 
ance with their nature as ‘‘prophetic,’’ that is to say as a 
body of revelation, is made plain by the subsequent context, 
where this prophecy is defined by the exegetical genitive as 
just that prophecy which is Scripture raca mpogyreia ypadjs). 
Thus \dyos, under the influence of the Old Testament usage 
of the ‘‘ Word of Jehovah,’’ comes to mean in the New Testa- 
ment specifically a divine revelation, and is applied to the 
Old Testament to designate it, as written in the Books which 
constitute it, the revealed Word of God.” 

The ddyos, now, which was contained in the BiBros (6.B- 
Atov) (Lk. i. 4), and of course contained in it only in written 
form, was, naturally, conceived, as truly by the New Testa- 
ment writers as by Greek writers in general, as a ypad7, (or 
in the plural ypadat). There seems to be no reason inherent 
in the case, accordingly, why ypad7 should not occur in the 
New Testament in its simple classical sense of a ‘‘ Treatise”’ 
or (as Adyos does, Acts i. 1) of a ‘‘ Book”’ or formal division of 
a treatise. It may very properly be considered therefore merely 
an accident that no instances are found in the New Testa- 
ment of this general usage of the term without further im- 
plications.”’ It so occurs in Josephus (“‘ Antt.’’ III. viii. 10; 1V. 
vill. 44, of books of his own) and in Philo (“De Somniis,”’ ad 
init., ‘H pév otv mpd TavTns ypad7 meprecxe — i. e., the preced- 
ing Book of the Treatise in hand); and it is repeatedly used 
in the LX X to designate any piece of writing (cf. II Chron. 
li. 11, Neh. vil. 64, Dan. v. 5, I Macc. xiv. 27, 48). In point 
of fact, however, ypad7 (ypadat) appears in the New Testa- 
ment only in its application to the Sacred Scriptures, and 
only in its high technical significance of ‘Scripture’? by way 
of eminence. It may be surmised that the long-established 
employment of the term as a designation of the Scriptures 
tended to withdraw it from common use on the lips of those 


2 This idea is still more emphatically expressed by the kindred term \éyia, 
Rom. ui. 2, cf. Heb. v. 12, Acts vii. 38, the current use of which in this sense by 
Philo is adverted to above (p. 118, note 6). See The Presbyterian and Reformed 
Review for April 1900, pp. 217 seq. 

3 Cf, Zahn, “ Einleitung,’’ II. 99, 108, note 12. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 131 


to whom these Scriptures were a thing apart. It may even 
seem that a certain tendency is observable in the New Testa- 
ment writers to distinguish between ypadn (ypadai) and 
yoduua (ypaupara) in favor of the former as the technical 
designation of the Scripture, while the latter is more freely 
employed for general uses. Certainly ypaduuara occurs occa- 
sionally in the New Testament for non-sacred writings (Acts 
xxvill. 21, Lk. xvi. 6, 7) and for sacred writings indeed but 
without stress on their sacredness (Jno. v. 47, ef. vu. 15), 
while it is only rarely met with in the pregnant sense of Serip- 
ture (II Tim. 111. 15 only) and then only in an established phrase 
which may be supposed to have obtained a standing of its 
own. There seems also in ypaupya a naturally stronger impli- 
cation of the material elements of the script, which may have 
formed the point of departure for a depreciatory employment 
of the term to designate the ‘‘ mere letter’’ as distinguished 
irommilen spirits Cle ROM. 2/4, 29) Vil..0, 11 Corso. 7). 
On the other hand the free employment by later Christian 
writers of ypadn, ypadat of secular compositions, and of both 
ypaupyaandypauuarainthe high technical sense of‘ Scripture,”’ 
so far militates against the supposition that already in New 
Testament Greek the former were hardening into the exclu- 
sive technical designations of ‘‘Scripture.’’?’ Meanwhile the 
simple fact remains that in the New Testament while ypau- 
para is used freely, and with a single exception exclusively, 
without implication of sacredness, ypad7n and ypadai are em- 
ployed solely as technical designations of Sacred Scripture 
and take their color in all their occurrences from this higher 
plane of usage. Throughout the New Testament the ypad7 
which alone is in question is conceived as rather the word of 
the Holy Spirit than of its human authors through whom 
merely it is spoken (Acts i. 16), and is therefore ever adduced 
as of indefectible, because of Divine, authority. 

It is somewhat remarkable that even on this high plane 
of its technical application, in which it designates nothing 
but the Sacred Scriptures, ypad7 never occurs in the New 
Testament, in accordance with its most natural and, in the 


132 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


classics, its most frequent sense of “‘ Treatise,” as a term to 


describe the several books of which the Old Testament is 
composed. It is tempting, no doubt, to seek to give it this 
sense in some of the passages where, occurring in the singular, 
it yet does not appear to designate the Scriptures as a whole; 
and even Dr. Hort seems for a moment almost inclined to 
yield to the temptation.” It is more tempting still to assume 
that behind the frequent use of the plural, ait ypadat, to desig- 
nate the Scriptures as a whole, there lies a previous current 
usage by which each Book which enters into the composition 
of these Scriptures was designated by the singular 7 ypag7n. 
In no single passage where the singular 7 ypad7 occurs, how- 
ever, does it seem possible to give it a reference to the Book 
of Scripture to which the appeal is made. And the frequent 
employment in profane Greek of ypadai in the plural for a 
single document * discourages the assumption that it, like 
Ta B.GAta, has reference, when used as a designation of Scrip- 
ture, to its composite character as a “‘ Divine Library.’’ It is 
true that in one unique passage, II Pet. iii. 16,”° ai ypadat 
bears a plural signification. But the items of which this plural 
is formed, as the grammatical construction implies, are not 
‘‘treatises’’ (Huther, Kiihl) but‘‘ passages’’ (De Wette). Peter 
says that the unlearned and unstable, of course, wrested the 
hard sayings of Paul’s letters, as they were accustomed to 
wrest tas Aowras ypadas, 1. e., ‘the other Scriptural state- 
ments,’ ” due reverence for which should have protected 


24 On I Pet. ii. 6: note the “ probably.”’ 

25 E. g. of a letter, Euripides, ‘‘Iph. in Taur.”’ 735, ‘‘Let him give an oath to 
me that he will bear ras ypadds to Argos”’; “Iph. in Aul.’’ 363 (a line of doubtful 
genuineness), where Agamemnon is said to be secretly devising &\\as ypadas; of 
a book, Georg. Sync., p. 168 ray & Trav Kehadriwvos ypaddv mpos tov Avddwpov dra- 
dwviar. 

*6 On the meaning of this passage, see especially Bigg, in loc., and cf. Chase, 
Hastings’, B. D., 11. 810. 

27 For ypadal in the sense of ‘‘statements,” cf. Eurip. “‘ Hipp.’ 1311, where 
Phaedra is said, under the fear of disgrace, to have written wevdets ypadas, 
probably not a “‘lying tablet”’ (ypadai in its singular sense as in note 25 above) 
but ‘‘false statements.’”’ Cf. also Philo, “‘De Praem. et Poen.”’ 11. near the end 
(Mangey, ii. 418), where he distributes the contents of the sacred volume into 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 133 


them from such treatment, the implication being that no 
part of Scripture was safe in their hands. This is a sufficiently 
remarkable use of the plural, no other example of which oc- 
curs in the New Testament; it is, however, an entirely legiti- 
mate use of the plural * and in its context a perfectly natural 
one, which, nevertheless, just because it is a special usage de- 
termined by its context, stands somewhat apart from the 
general technical use of ai ypadai to designate the body of 
Scriptures and cannot guide us to its interpretation. In no 
other passage where ai ypadat occurs is there the slightest 
hint that its plural form is determined by the conception of 
the Scriptures as a congeries of authoritative passages; this 
interpretation of the current plural form may indeed be set 
aside at once as outside of the possibilities of the case. 

If we may not speak quite so decisively of the possibility 
of the plural form resting on a conception of ‘‘ the Scriptures”’ 
as made up of a collection of Books, it may at least be said 
that there is nothing in the New Testament use of the term 
to remove the general unlikelihood of that construction of it. 
There are indeed two or three passages in which ypadai might 
appear at first sight to designate a body of documents. Such 
are, for example, Rom. xvi. 26, where we read of ypadal 
mpopyrikat, and especially Matt. xxvi. 56, where we read of at 
ypadat Tov mpodntav. In the case of Rom. xvi. 26, however, 


al pnral ypadai and ai xa’ drdvocay adAnyopiat, Which may perhaps be taken as 
“literal statements” and ‘‘covert allegories.’”? The use of ypa¢7 in the sense of a 
““passage’”’ of Scripture is found in Philo, the LX X and frequently in the New 
Testament (see below). 

28 Accordingly ypadat is quite freely used by the Church Fathers of a plurality 
of passages of Scripture. The famous words in Polycarp “‘ Ad Phil.,”’ xii. 1 are prob- 
ably not a case in point: ut his Scripturis dictum est here apparently refers back 
to the in sacris libris which just precedes them and not forward to the two pas- 
sages adduced. From Justin on, however, numerous examples present themselves. 
Cf. e. g. Justin, ‘Contra Tryph.” 65 (Otto. p. 230): ‘And Trypho said, Being 
importuned by so many Scriptures (rév rocobtrwyv ypaddv) I do not know what to 
say about the Scripture (77s ypadjs) which Isaiah said, according to which God 
says He will not give His glory to another.” Again, ‘Cont. Tryph.” 71 (Otto. p. 
255, cf. note): They have taken away zodAds ypadds from the LXX translation. 
Again, Clem. Alex. “Cohort. ad Gentes,” 9 ad init. (Migne, i. 192D), “I could 
adduce pupias ypa¢ds not one of which shall pass away.” 


134 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the very natural impression that here we have mention of the 
several books which constitute the second of the sections of 
the Jewish canon, known as ‘‘ The Prophets,” is almost cer- 
tainly an error (cf. Vaughan 2n loc.). It is very unlikely that 
the ‘‘prophetic writings’’ with this mention of which this 
epistle closes are any other than the ‘‘ Holy Scriptures”’ of 
the prophets with mention of which it opens (Rom. i. 2); and 
it is quite clear that these ‘‘ Holy Scriptures”’ are much more 
inclusive than the writings of the second section of the Jew- 
ish canon, — that they embrace in fact the entirety of Scrip- 
ture, thought of here as of prophetic, that is, revelatory, 
character (cf. Meyer, Weiss, Oltramare in loc.; Bleek on Heb. 
1.1). Nor need the‘‘ Scriptures of the prophets’’ of Matt. xxvi. 
56 have any different meaning (cf. Swete on Mk. xiv. 49, 
Morrison in loc.). Itis quite true that the term ‘‘ The Prophets”’ 
is sometimes in Matthew (v. 17, vii. 12, xxii. 40) and in the 
other Gospels (Lk. xvi. 16, 29, 31, xxiv. 44, Jno. 1. 45) and in 
the rest of the New Testament (Acts vil. 42, xiii. 15, xxiv. 14, 
Xxvill. 23, Rom. i. 21) a technical term designating the second 
section of the Jewish canon; but it is equally true that it is 
sometimes used much more inclusively. For example in Matt. 
li. 23 the reference seems to be quite generally to the Old 
Testament considered as a prophetic book (cf. Meyer in loc.) ; 
and in Matt. xi. 13, ‘all the prophets and even the law proph- 
esied,’’ the Pentateuch is expressly included within the pro- 
phetic word (cf. II Pet. 1. 19). Passages like Lk. i. 70, xi. 50 
show that by these writers the whole Old Testament reve- 
lation was thought of as prophetic in character, while Lk. 
Xvill. 31 is certainly entirely general (cf. Acts iii. 24). The 
most instructive passages, however, are doubtless those which 
follow one another so closely in Lk. xxiv. 25, 27, 44. It can 
hardly be doubted that the same body of books is intended 
in all three of these references, which merely progressively 
discriminate between the parts which make up the whole. 
The simple ‘‘prophets’’ thus becomes first ‘‘ Moses and in- 
deed all the prophets”’ (cf. Hahn zn loc.) — further defined as 
the “whole Scripture’? — and then ‘‘the Law of Moses, and 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 135 


the Prophets and the Psalms.’ The term ‘‘the Prophets’’ 
occurs thus in this brief context in three senses of varying 
inclusiveness, and apparently lends itself as readily to the 
widest as to the narrowest application. In these circumstances 
there seems no reason why in Matt. xxvi. 56 “‘ the Scriptures of 
the Prophets”’ should be narrowed beyond the inclusiveness 
of the suggestion of ‘‘the Scriptures’’ of the immediately pre- 
ceding context (xxvi. 54) or of its own parallel in Mk. xiv. 49. 
In other words there is every reason to believe that in this 
passage the defining adjunct ‘‘of the Prophets’’ does not dis- 
criminate among the books which make up the Scriptures 
and single out certain of these as prophetic, but rather de- 
scribes the entire body of Scripture as prophetic in origin and 
character, that is to say as a revelation from God.” Tpadai 
does not here, then, mean ‘“‘books’’ ‘‘treatises,’’ but at 
ypadai, as in verse 54 and in the parallel passage, Mk. xiv. 
49, means the one Divine book. That Lk. xxiv. 27, év tacats 
Tats ypadats, lends itself readily to the same interpretation 
requires no argument to show. If ai ypagai is employed in a 
singular sense, then 7acar ai ypadat means just the whole of 
the document so designated, and is the exact equivalent of 
Taga 7 Ypady or taoa ypady (II Tim. iii. 16 taken as a proper 
noun). The truth seems to be, therefore, that as there is no 
example in the New Testament of the use of 7 ypady in the 
sense of one of the Books of Scripture, so there is no trace in 
its use of ai ypadai of an underlying consciousness of the com- 
position of the Scriptures out of a body of such Books.” 
Whether the plural ai ypadat, or the singular 7 ypad, is em- 
ployed, therefore, the meaning is the same; in either case the 

29 On this conception of the whole Old Testament as a prophetic book, cf. 
Willis J. Beecher, “The Prophets and the Promise,” 1905, pp. 168 seq. 

80 In Patristic usage, on the contrary, a very large variety of applications of 
% ypabn and ai ypadat, in the sense of Biblical Books or more or less extensive . 
collections of Biblical Books, is found. Thus for example, in Athan. ‘‘Epist. 
Encyel.” 1 ad init. we meet with 7 Geta rv Kpirévy pad7: in Kus. h. e. ii. 11 with 
TOD evayyediov ypady; in ibid. 1. 1. 2. with 7 iepd T&v ebayyediwy ypad7; in Orig. 
“Contr. Cels.”’ i. 58, with 4 ebayyedix7) ypadh. In Origen, ‘‘ Contr. Cels.”’ vii. 24 and 


in ‘‘Fragmenta in Prov.” 2, we find 4 radad ypady, and in another place (Migne, 
i, 1365) the corresponding vewrepar ypadai where the plural is probably a real 


136 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


application of the term to the Old Testament writings by the 
writers of the New Testament is the outgrowth of their con- 
ception of these Old Testament writings as a unitary whole, 
and designates this body of writings in its entirety as the one, 
well-known, authoritative documentation of the Divine reve- 
lation. This is the fundamental fact with respect to the use 
of these terms in the New Testament from which all the other 
facts of their usage flow. 

In saying this, we are brought at once, however, face to 
face with what is probably the most remarkable fact about 
the usage of 7 ypad7 in the New Testament. This is its occa- 
sional employment to refer, not merely, as was to be expected 
from its form and previous history, to Scripture as a whole, 
nor even as, had it so occurred in the New Testament, would 
have been only a continuation of its profane usage, to the 
several treatises which make up that whole, but to individual 
passages of Scripture. This employment finds so little sup- 
port in profane Greek, in which ypauya rather than ypa¢7 is 
the current form for the adduction of clauses or fragmentary 
portions of documents,” that it has often been represented as 
a peculiarity of the New Testament and Patristic Greek. 
Thus, for example, we read in Stephens’ ‘‘Thesaurus’’ (sub 
voc.): “‘In the New Testament and ecclesiastical books, 7 
ypapn and ai ypadai are used of the sacred writings which are 
commonly called ‘The Holy Scriptures.’ But ypag7 is some- 
times in the New Testament employed peculiarly of a par- 
ticular passage of Scripture.’’?’ And Schaefer adds to this 
merely a reference to a passage in one of the orations of 


plural. This is also the case in, say, Eus. h. e. ii. 3 when he speaks of “‘the acknowl- 
edged ypadat”’ of the New Testament, and (ad init.) mentions that II Peter had 
been used by many wera r&v &d\d\wv ypadar. 

31. g. Thucyd. v. 29: ‘‘They were angry with the Lacedemonians chiefly be- 
cause among other things it was provided in the treaty with Athens that the 
Lacedemonians and Athenians if agreed might add to or take away from them 
whatever they pleased: this clause (rofro 76 ypduua) aroused great uneasiness 
among the Peloponnesians.’”’ Cf. Philo. “De Congr. erud. grat.’”’ 12 (Mangey 
i. 527): ‘There is also in another place 76 ypdéupa rodro inscribed” = Deut. 
xxxii. 8; “Quod Deus Immut’’ 2 (Mangey i. 273): Kara 76 lepwrarov Mwictws 


Ypamua TOUTO. 


; 





A eA. - —> 
Bae eM PPB 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 137 


Valckenaer, where commenting on Acts xvii. 2-3, he remarks 
that, in the New Testament, “‘ passages of the Old Testament 
such as are also designated zepioxds, té7ovs and xwpla are 
sometimes also called ypadas.” * The usage does not seem, 
however, to be peculiar to the New Testament and the Church 
Fathers: it occurs also, though rarely, in the LX X and Philo, 
and may claim therefore to be at least Hellenistic.*® It is prob- 
ably the outgrowth of the habit of looking upon the Scrip- 
tures as a unitary book of divine oracles, every part and pas- 
sage of which is clothed with the authority which belongs to 
the whole, and which is of course manifested in all its parts. 
No doubt this extension of ypa¢7 from a designation of Scrip- 
ture as a whole to a designation of any given fragment of 
Scripture, however small, was mediated by the circumstance 
that in adducing the authority of ‘Scripture’ for any doc- 
trine or practice, it was always inevitably not the whole of 
‘Scripture’ but some special declaration of ‘Scripture’ which 
was especially in mind as bearing upon the particular point 
at the moment in hand. The transition was easy from say- 
ing ‘The Scripture says, namely in this or that passage,”’ 
to saying of this and that passage specifically, ‘‘ This Scrip- 
ture says’’ and ‘‘ Another Scripture says.’’ When the entirety 
of Scripture is ‘‘Scripture’’ to us, each passage may readily 
be adduced as ‘‘Scripture”’ also, because ‘‘Scripture”’ is con- 
ceived as speaking in and through each passage. A step so 
inviting was sure to be taken sooner or later. Whenever there- 
fore ypady occurs of a particular passage of Scripture, so far 


82 “Ti Hemsterhusii Orationes, ...L. C. Valckenai Tres Orationes,’’ etc. 
Lugdunum Bat., 1784, p. 395. 

33 TV Mace. xviil. 14: ‘And he reminded you of 77 ‘Hoatov ypadqv which says, 
Though you pass through fire.’’ Philo, ‘ Quis rerum div. her.’’ 53 (Mangey, i. 511); 
7d 5& &kdNoWWor mrpocvdaiver TH yoahh packwv: eppeln mpds ’ABpaédpy; “De Praem. et 
poen.’’ 11 (Mangey i. 418). Cf. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, XI (April 
1900) 245-6 notes. For the possibility of a classical use of ypadai = “‘state- 
ments” see above p. 132 note 27. Of the ordinary Greek words for “passage” 
of a writing, neither ypdupa nor xwpiov occurs in the New Testament; rézos only 
at Lk. iv. 17 and epoxy only at Acts viii. 32 (cf. Dr. C. J. Vaughan on Rom. 
iv. 3 and per contra, Meyer in loc. and cf. I Pet. 1. 6 and the commentators there.) 
The place of all these terms is taken in the New Testament by ypad7. 


138 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


from throwing in doubt its usage of Scripture as a whole, 
conceived as a unitary Divine authority, it rather presup- 
poses this usage and is an outgrowth of it. It cannot surprise 
us therefore that 7 ypad7 occurs in the New Testament side 
by side in the two senses, and designates indifferently either 
Scripture as a whole, or a particular passage of Scripture, 
that is, is used indifferently ‘‘collectively”’ as it has not very 
exactly been called, and “‘ particularly.”’ 

It has often, no doubt, been called in question whether 
both these senses do occur side by side in the New Testa- 
ment. Possibly a desire to erect some well-marked and uni- 
form distinction between the usage of the plural ai ypadat 
and the singular 7 ypadn, has not been wholly without its 
influence here. At all events the suggestion has every now 
and then been made that the singular 7 ypad7 bears in the 
New Testament the uniform sense of ‘a passage of Scrip- 
ture,’ while it is the plural, ai ypadai, alone which designates 
the Scriptures in their entirety. The famous Rationalist di- 
vine, Johannes Schulthess, for example, having occasion to 
comment briefly on the words raca ypad7) OcdrvevoTos, II Tim. 
ili. 16, among other assertions of equal insecurity, makes this 
one: “‘ypad7 in the singular never means in the New Testa- 
ment 6i6dos, much less the entirety of Tav iep@v ypayupatwr, 
but some particular passage.” ** Hitherto it has been thought 
enough to meet such assertions with a mere expression of 
dissent. Christiaan Sepp, for example, meets this one with 
equal brevity and point by the simple observation: ‘‘ Pas- 
sages like Jno. x. 35 prove the contrary.” *® But a new face 
has been put upon the matter by the powerful advocacy of 
the proposition ‘‘that the singular ypad7 in the New Testa- 
ment always means a particular passage of Scripture,’’ by the 
late Bishop Lightfoot in a comment on Gal. iii. 22 which has 
on this account become famous. We must believe, however, 
that it is the weight of Dr. Lightfoot’s justly great authority 
rather than the inherent reasonableness of the doctrine which 


‘4 “ Lucubr. pro divin. discip. ac person. Jesu,” etc. Turici 1828, p. 36 note. 
86 “De Leer des N. T. over de H. S. des O. V.,” Amsterdam 1849, p. 70. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 139 


has given this opinion the great vogue which it appears to 
enjoy at present among English-speaking scholars. It was at 
once confuted, it is true, by Dr. C. J. Vaughan in a note on 
Rom. iv. 3; and in his own note on this passage Dr. Lightfoot 
seemed almost (not quite) persuaded to admit a doubt as to 
the usage of John, while reiterating, with respect to Paul at 
least, that in the matter of the use of ypa¢7 in the singular of 
a single passage of Scripture ‘‘ practice is absolute and uni- 
form.’”’ Dr. Westcott took his stand by Dr. Lightfoot’s side 
(see on Jno. il. 22, x. 35) and labored to show that John’s 
usage conforms to the canon asserted; and Dr. Hort, though 
with some apparent hesitation with respect to John and Paul 
— the only portions of the New Testament, it will be noticed, 
of which Drs. Westcott and Lightfoot express assurance — 
inclined on the whole to give his assent to their general judg- 
ment (on I Peter ii. 6). With more hesitancy, Dr. Swete re- 
marks merely that ‘‘ypa@7 is a portion of Scripture,”’ at least 
‘‘almost always when the singular is used”’ (on Mk. xi. 10). 
General agreement in the view in question is expressed also, 
for example, by Page (Acts i. 16), Knowling (Acts vill. 32), 
Plummer (Lk. iv. 21), A. Stewart (Hastings’ BD. I 286). It 
is difficult to believe, however, that the reasons assigned for 
this view are sufficient to bear the’ weight of the judgment 
founded on them. They suffice, certainly, to show — what is 
in itself sufficiently remarkable, — that 4 ypad7 is repeatedly 
employed in the New Testament of a particular passage of 
Scripture. But the attempt to carry this usage through all 
the instances in which the singular appears involves a vio- 
lence of exegetical procedure which breaks down of itself. 
Out of the thirty instances in which the singular, 7 ypadn 
occurs, about a score prove utterly intractable to the pro- 
posed interpretation, — these nineteen to wit: Jno. i. 22, 
vii. 38, 42, x. 35, xvii. 12, xix. 28, xx. 9, Acts vill. 32, Rom. iv. 
Daixmlon xc lle xie2enCalaiiese22ei1v. 50, Li himivalSe Jas. 
iv. 5, I Pet. ii. 6, II Pet. i. 20. In point of fact, therefore, in 


36 Cf. Cremer, sub. voc., who gives 17 passages, omitting of those above Jno. 
xvii. 12, xx. 9; T. Stephenson, “ Expository Times” xiv. 475 seq. who in a well- 


140 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


some two-thirds of the instances where ypag7 is employed in 
the singular, its reference is to the Scripture as a whole, to 
that unitary written authority to which final appeal was 
made. In some of these passages it is no less than impossible 
to take it otherwise. In Jno. ii. 22, for example, there is abso- 
lutely no definite passage suggested, and Westcott seeks one 
to which to assign the reference only under the pressure of 
theory. The same is true of Jno. xx. 9, where the reference is 
quite as broad asin Lk. xxiv. 45. In Jno. x. 35 the argument 
depends upon the wide reference to Scripture as a whole, 
which forms its major premise. In Gal. i. 22 there is abso- 
lutely nothing to suggest a reference to a special text rather 
than to the general tenor of Scripture, and Lightfoot supphes 
a special text only conjecturally and with hesitation. The 
personification of Scripture in such passages as Jas. iv. 5, 
Gal. ii. 8 carries with it the same implication. And the anar- 
throus use of ypadn7 in I Pet. ii. 6, II Pet. i. 20, cf. 11 Tim. iii. 
16, is explicable only on the presupposition that 7 ypad7n had 
become so much the proper designation of Scripture that the 
term had acquired the value of a proper name, and was there- 
fore treated as definite without, as with, the article. If any- 
thing were needed to render this supposition certain, it would 
be supplied by the straits to which expositors are brought 
who seek to get along without it.*” Dr. Hort, for example, 
after declining to understand ypad7 in I Pet. ii. 6 of Scripture 
in general, because he does not find ‘‘a distinct and recog- 
nized use of this sort,”’ finally suggests that we should render 
‘‘simply, ‘in writing,’”’ so that “‘wepiéxe é€v ypady shall be 
held equivalent to ‘it stands written.’’’ But he is compelled 
to add: ‘That the quotation was authoritative, though not 
expressed, was doubtless implied, in accordance with the 


classified list gives 18 passages, omitting Jno. xx. 9; E. Hiihn, “ Die alttesta- 
mentlichen Citate’’ etc., 1900, p. 276, who gives 23 passages, adding Jno. xiii. 18, 
xix. 24, 36, Jas. 1. 8. On the general question, cf. Vaughan, on Rom. iv. 3, Meyer 
on Jno. x. 35, Weiss on Jno. x. 35, Kiibel on 2 Pet. i. 20, Abbott on Eph. iv. 8, 
Beet on Rom. ix. 17, “Encye. Bibl.” 4329, Francke, “Das A. T. bei Johan,” p. 
48, Haupt, “Die alttest. Citate in d. vier Evang.,’’ p. 201. 

37 Cf. Zahn, “ Hinleitung,” II, 108; Hort on I Pet. ii. 6. 


| 
® 
49 





“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 141 


familiar Jewish use of the words ‘said,’ ‘written,’’?’ — ap- 
parently not realizing that, if the quotation is authoritative 
then, “‘It stands written”’ is the equivalent of the authori- 
tative employment of this phrase in the adduction of what is 
specifically Scripture, and therefore means here distinctly 
not, ‘‘Itstands written — somewhere,” but “It stands written 
in the (technically so-called) Scripture.’’ This seems, there- 
fore, to be only a roundabout way of saying that ypad7 here 
means and definitely refers to the authoritative Scripture, 
and not any ‘writing’ indifferently. The same is inevitably 
true of II Pet.i. 20. It is impossible that by ‘‘every prophecy 
of Scripture’”’ the writer can have meant ‘‘every prophecy 
which has been reduced to writing.” ** He undoubtedly in- 
tended the prophecies written in the Old Testament alone 
(cf., Bigg, Kiibel, Keil 7m loc.); and this is but another way of 
saying that anarthrous ypad7 is to him a technical desig- 
nation of the Old Testament, or, in other words, that he uses 
it with precisely the implications with which we employ the 
term, “‘Scripture.”’ * In the presence of such passages as these 
there seems to be no reason why we should fail to recognize 
that the employment of ypad7 in the New Testament so far 
follows its profane usage, in which it is applied to entire 
documents and carries with it a general implication of com- 
pleteness, that it in its most common reference designates 
the Old Testament to which it is applied in its completeness 
as a unitary whole.” 


88 Cf. Zahn, ‘‘Einleitung,’’ II. p. 109. 

39 Presumably few will take refuge in the explanation suggested by Dr. E. H. 
Plumptre (“‘Smith’s B. D.”’ 2874), which understands the “prophecy” here of New 
Testament, not Old Testament prophets and renders, every prophetic utterance 
arising from, resting on, a ypad7 — i. e. a passage of the Old Testament. 

40 Precisely the same is true of the usage of the term in at least the earlier 
Patristic literature, although a contrary impression might be taken from a remark 
at the close of Dr. Lightfoot’s note on Gal. iii. 22. ‘H ypad7 of a passage of Scrip- 
ture seems to be the rarer usage in, for example, the so-called Apostolical Fathers. 
It occurs with certainty, only at 1 Clem. xxiii. 3 (cf. xxv. 5), 2 Clem. xiv. 1, 
while 7 ypady = “Scripture”? as a whole, seems to occur at least at 1 Clem. 
xeRIV OG XkXVe 7, xiii. 5; 2:Clemlvi8) xiv. 2; Barn: iv. 11,)v.4yvi 12, xi) 2, 
xvi. 5. (The plural ai ypagdat occurs in 1 Clem. xlv. 2, and in the formula ai iepai 
ypagai in 1 Clem. liii. 1 [Polye. xii. 1]). In the later Fathers 4 ypad4 occurs in 


142 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


It has seemed worth while to enter somewhat fully upon 
this matter, not only on account of its intrinsic interest and 
the importance given it in recent expositions, but also be- 
cause the issue throws into a high light what is after all the 
fundamental fact about the New Testament use of 7 ypadn, 
ai ypadat. This is the implication which they bear not only of 
the uniqueness of the body of religious writings which they 
designate, entitling them to be spoken of as together, in a 
supereminent sense, ‘the Scriptures,’’ or rather “the Scrip- 
ture,”’ or even ‘“Scripture’’; but also, along with this, of their 
irreducible unity, — as constituting in their entirety a single 
divinely authoritative “ writing.’ Francke is quite within the 
limits of clear fact, when he remarks,” ‘“‘ The contemplation 
of the entire body of Scripture as a unitary word, in all its 
parts equally resting upon a single authority, and therefore 
possessing the same authority everywhere, forms the most 
essential presupposition of the designation of the collection 
of the written word as the ypadn.” It only needs to be added 
that the same is true of its designation as ai ypadat. What re- 
quires emphasis, in a word, is that the two designations 77 
ypapdn and ai ypadai are, so far as our evidence goes, strictly 
parallel; and neither is to be derived from the other. That 
the application of at ypadai to the Scriptures does not rest 
on a previous application of 7 ypadn to each of the Books of 
Scripture, we have already had occasion to show. It is equally 
important to observe that the application to Scripture of % 
ypap7.is not a subsequent development resting on a previous 
usage by which Scripture was known as ai ypadat. The con- 
trary assumption is often tacitly made and it is sometimes 
quite plainly expressed, as, for example, in the concluding 
words of Dr. Lightfoot’s note on Gal. ili. 22, where he tells 
us that “‘the transition from the ‘Scriptures’ to the ‘Scrip- 
ture’ is analogous to the transition from 7a B.BXta to the 
‘Bible.’”’ Precisely what is meant by the last clause of this 


every conceivable variety of sense and application, but in none more distinctly 
than of Scripture as a whole. 
41 “Das A. T. bei Johan,” p. 48. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 143 


statement is perhaps not perfectly clear. It is obvious, of 
course, that the designation of the Scripture as ta 6.6Ata 
antedates the misunderstanding of this term as a feminine 
singular, whence arose the Latin “‘ Biblia’’ and our “ Bible”’ 
treated as a singular — if this be really the history of the 
origin of these latter terms; but Dr. Lightfoot can hardly 
have meant that the use of 7 ypad7 as a designation of the 
Scripture arose similiarly through a misunderstanding of ai 
ypadai as a singular. It would seem that he can only have 
meant that the progress was in both cases from a view of the 
sacred books which was fully conscious of their plurality to 
a conception of them which has swallowed up their plurality 
in a unitary whole. There is no proof, however, that such a 
movement of thought took place in either case. The fact 
seems to be that ai ypadat was used from its earliest appli- 
cation to Scripture in a singular sense, in accordance with a 
current usage of the term in profane Greek. And we lack 
evidence that the Scriptures were known as 7a 6.8dta before 
they were known as 7) BiGXos.* These two modes of speaking 
of Scripture appear to have been rather parallel than con- 
secutive usages. And it is probable that the same is true of 
the designations ai ypadai and 7 ypadn as well. It is true 
enough that we meet with ai ypadat, though somewhat rarely 
and perhaps ordinarily in the phrase [ai] iepat ypadai, in 
Philo “ and Josephus, whereas 7 ypad7 of Scripture in general 
is said to occur first in the New Testament.“ But it is not 


42 See above, p. 127, note 19. 

48H. g. “De Abrahamo,”’ 13 (Mangey ii, 10): ai ypadai = “the Scrip- 
tures.” 

44 Cf. Cremer, ed. 9, sub voc. ypady II: “In Philo, and as it seems, also in 
Josephus, the singular does not occur of the Scriptures as a whole, although the 
plural does. Cf. ai aroypadai 2 Mace. ii. 1, dvaypadai verse 14. The use of the 
singular in this sense seems accordingly to have first formed itself, or perhaps, 
more correctly to have manifested itself, in the New Testament community, and 
that in connection with its belief in the Messiah and its appeal to the Old Testa- 
ment.” The use of singular ypa¢7 of the Scriptures is in any event not frequent 
in Philo and Josephus: and Cremer’s inference is rash, even if the facts be as 
represented. It would be well, however, if the statement of fact were carefully 
verified. Cf. Josephus, ‘‘ Antt.’”’ III. i. 7, fin. where he tells us that a ypadq was 


144 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


probable that we are witnesses of the birth of a new usage 
in either case; and the evidence is too meagre to justify a 
pronouncement on the relative ages of the two forms. And 
in proportion as we recognize the singular sense of ai ypadat 
and the rooting of both usages in a precedent Jewish mode 
of citing Scripture as the unitary Law of God, does all the 
probability of the proposed development pass away. In any 
event when the New Testament was in process of writing it 
was much too late in the day to speak of the formation of 
a sense of the unitary uniqueness of the Old Testament or 
of the rise of a usage in designating the Old Testament in 
which that sense would first come to its manifestation. Both 
that sense and modes of expressing it were an inheritance of 
the New Testament writers from a remote past, and find 
manifestation in the whole body of Jewish literature, not 
merely in the usage of the Rabbis, but in the pages of Philo 
as well. The truth seems to be that whether ai ypadai is used 
or » ypadn or anarthrous ypady the implication is the same. 
In each case alike the Old Testament is thought of as a 
single document, set over against all other documents by 
reason of its unique authority based upon its Divine origin, 
on the ground of which it is constituted in every part and 
declaration the final arbiter of belief and practice. We need 
not, then, seek to discover subtle reasons for the distribution 
of these forms through the New Testament, asking why truly 
anarthrous ypadn is employed only by Peter (cf. II Tim. 
ill. 16); why John and Paul prevailingly use the singular, 
Matthew uniformly and Mark and Luke prevailingly the 
plural; and why our Lord is reported as employing the two 
numbers indifferently. These things are at most matters of 
literary habit; at least, matters of chance and occasion, like 
our own indifferent use of ‘The Scriptures,’ ‘The Scripture,’ 
‘Scripture.’ 

One of the outgrowths of the conception of the Old Testa- 
deposited in the Temple which informs us that God foretold to Moses that water 


should be drawn thus from the rock. By this ypa¢4 he means of course precisely 
what he elsewhere calls ai iepai ypadat: but he necessarily speaks of it indefinitely. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 145 


ment as a unitary Divine document, of indefectible author- 
ity in allits parts and declarations, was the habit of adducing 
it for the ordinary purposes of instruction or debate by 
such simple formulas as ‘It is said,’ ‘It is written,’ with the 
pregnant implication that what is thus adduced as ‘said’ or 
‘written’ is ‘said’ or ‘written’ by an authority recognized 
as Divine and final. Both of these usages are richly illus- 
trated in a variety of forms and with all high implications, 
not only inthe New Testament at large, but alsoin the Gospels, 
and not only in the comments by the Evangelists but also in 
reported sayings of our Lord. We are concerned here par- 
ticularly only with the formula ‘‘It is written,’’ in which the 
consciousness of the written form, the documentary charac- 
ter, of the authority appealed to is most distinctly expressed. 
In its most common form, this formula is the simple yéypar- 
Tat, used either absolutely, or, with none of its authoritative 
implications thereby evacuated, with more or less precise defi- 
nition of the place where the cited words can be found written. 
By its side there occurs in John the resolved formula yeypap- 
pevov éotiv; and in the latter part of Luke there is a tendency 
to adduce Scripture by means of a participial construction.” 
These modes of citation have analogies in profane Greek, 
especially in legislative usage.** But, as Cremer points out, 
their use with reference to the Divine Scriptures, as it in- 
volves the adduction of an authority which rises immeasur- 

45The various formulas may be commodiously reviewed in Hihn, “Die 
alttestamentlichen Citate,” pp. 272 seq. 

46 Of, Cremer ed. 9 sub voc. ypadw, fin.; Deissmann, “ Bible Studies,” 112, 250. 
A good example of the classical mode of expression may perhaps be found in the 
third Philippic of Demosthenes (III. 41, 42, p. 122): ‘‘That our condition was 
formerly quite different from this, I shall now convince you, not by any argu- 
ments of my own, but by a decree of your ancestors (ypaupara Tay mpoyovwr) ... 
What then says the decree (ra ypdumara)? .. . In the laws importing capital cases 
it is enacted (yéyparra)’’? Deissmann calls attention to the fact that Josephus 
uses yéyparra infrequently in his references to the Old Testament, preferring 
avayéyparrat; and refers to a passage in which he uses yéeypamracof a profane docu- 
ment. The passage is ‘Contr. Ap.’ IV. 18: “‘For if we may give credit to the 
Phoenician records (4vaypadats), it is recorded (yéyparrat) in them,” etc. It should 


be observed that this is not an instance of the absolute yéypamraz; but yet it is not 
without an implication of (notarial) authority. 


146 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ably above all legislative authority, so is freighted with a 
significance to which the profane usage affords no key. In the 
Gospels, — if we may take the Gospels as an example of the 
whole — of the two forms, yéypamrac alone occurs in Matthew 
(ii. 5, iv. 6 in the narrative; iv. 4, iv. 7, 10, xi. 10, xxi. 13, 
xxvi. 24, 31 in the report of our Lord’s words) and in Mark 
(i. 2in the narrative; viii16,1x1 12°13) x1. 7, xieeZ ae 
the report of our Lord’s words), and predominantly in Luke 
(ii. 23, iii. 4, iv. 10 in the narrative; iv. 4, 8, vu. 27, x. 20; 
xix. 46, xxiv. 46 in the report of our Lord’s words), but only 
once in John (vill. 17 in the report of our Lord’s words). In 
the latter part of Luke the citation of Scripture is accom- 
plished by the aid of the participle yeypaupévor ([cf. iv. 17 | 
Xvill. 31, xx. 17, xxi. 22, xxl. 37, xxiv. 44), while in John the 
place of the formula yéypamrat (viii. 17 only) is taken by the 
resolved form yeypappevoy éoriv (il. 17, vi. 31, x. 34, xii. 14, 
cf. 16, in the narrative; vi. 45, [ vill. 17], cf. xv.. 25) in the 
report of our Lord’s words). The significance of these for- 
mulas is perhaps most manifest when they are used abso- 
lutely, where they stand alone in bare authoritativeness, 
without indication of any kind whence the citation adduced 
is derived, the bald adduction being indication enough that 
it is the Divine authority of Scripture to which appeal is 
made. Instances of this usage are found in the Gospels for 
yeypamrat in Matt. iv. 4, 6, 7, 10, xi. 10); xxi. 13, xxvi. 24, 318 
in Mk) vil 6, ixv12, 13,9x1. 17, xive21) 27 Li ee 
vu. 27, xix. 46, xx. 17, xxii. 37; for vyeypappeévov éortv in Jno. ii. 
17, vi. 31, xii. 14, [16 ]. In only a single passage each in Mat- 
thew and Mark is there added an indication of the source of 
the citation (Matt. 11. 5, “it is written through the prophet’’; 
Mk. 1. 2, “it is written in Isaiah the prophet’’). In Luke such 
defining adjuncts are more frequent (ii. 23, in the law of the 
Lord; ii. 4, in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet; 
x. 26, in the law; xviii. 31, through the prophet; xxiv. 44, in 
the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms, i. e., in 
Scripture, verse 45). In John also such definitions are not 
relatively rare (vi. 45, in the prophets; viii. 17, in your law; 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, 147 


x. 34, in your law; xv. 25, in the law). These fuller passages 
while they identify the document from which the citation is 
drawn, in no wise suggest that the necessity for such identi- 
fication was felt; by their relative infrequency they rather 
emphasize how unnecessary such specification was except as 
an additional solemn invocation of the recognized source of 
all religious authority. The bare “‘It is written”’ was the de- 
cisive adduction of the indefectible authority of the Scrip- 
tures of God, clothed as such, in all their parts and in all their 
declarations, with His authority. We could scarcely imagine 
a usage which would more illuminatingly exhibit the estimate 
put upon Scripture as the expressed mind of God or the rooted 
sense of its unity and its equal authoritativeness in all its 
parts.“ | 

We should not pass lightly over this high implication of 
the employment of absolute yéypamrac to adduce the Scrip- 
tural word, and especially the suggestions of its relative fre- 
quency. No better index could be afforded of the sense of the 
unitary authority of the document so cited which dominated 
the minds of the writers of the New Testament and of our 
Lord as reported by them. The consciousness of the human 
authors, through whom the Scriptures were committed to 
writing, retires into the background; thought is absorbed in 
the contemplation of the divine authority which lies behind 
them and expresses itself through them. Even when explana- 
tory adjuncts are added indicating where the words to which 
appeal is made are to be found written, they are so framed 
as not to lessen this implication. Commonly there is given 
only a bare reference to the written source of the words in 
mind; “ and when the human authors are named, it is not 


‘7 Cf. especially Cremer, sub voc. ypadw: and A. Kuyper, “ Encyclopaedia of 
Sacred Theology,” pp. 433 seq., 444 seq. 

48 ‘“Tn the law and the prophets and the psalms,” Lk. xxiv. 44; “in the law”’ 
(of the whole Old Testament), Jno. x. 34, xv. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 21; ‘‘in the (or your, 
or their) law,” Lk. x. 26; Jno. viii. 17; ‘‘in the law of Moses,” 1 Cor. ix. 9; “‘in the 
law of the Lord,” Lk. ii. 23; ‘in the prophets,” Jno. vi. 45, Acts xx. 14; “‘in 
the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet,’’ Luke ii. 4; ‘‘in the book of the 
prophets,”’ Acts vii. 42; “in the Book of Psalms,” Acts i. 20 (cf. Luke xxi. 62, 
Matt. xii. 36); “‘in the second Psalm,” Acts xiii. 33. The closest definitions of 


148 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


so much as the responsible authors of the words adduced as 
the intermediaries through whom the Divine authority ex- 
presses itself.“* In the parallel usage by which the Scriptures 
are appealed to by ‘‘It is said’’ and similar formulas the im- 
plication in question is perhaps even more clear. In Matthew, 
for example, Scripture is often cited as ‘‘what was spoken 
through (6:4)’’ the prophets (ii. 23) or the prophet (xii. 35, 
xxi. 4), or more specifically through this or that prophet — 
Isaiah ((iii. 3], iv. 14, viii. 17, xii. 17, ef. Jno. xii. 38), or Jere- 
miah (ii. 17, xxvii. 9) or Daniel (xxiv. 15). In a few passages 
of this kind the implication is explicitly filled out, and we 
read that the Scripture is spoken ‘‘by the Lord”’ (i760 xupiov) 
through (61a) the prophet (i. 22, 1. 15, ef., xxii. 31, ‘‘ Have ye 
not read what was spoken by God to you,”’ that is, in their 
Seriptures; Acts i. 16, ‘‘ The Scriptures which the Holy Ghost 
spoke before through the words of David”’; xxviii. 25, ‘‘ The 
Holy Ghost spokethrough Isaiah the prophet to yourfathers’’). 
A similar use of eipnuévoy or etpnrar occurs in the writings of 
Luke, whether absolutely (Lk. iv. 12, [Rom. iv. 18 ]) or with 
indication of the place where it is said (Lk. 11. 24, Acts xiii. 
40); and here too we find occasionally a suggestion that the 
human speaker is only the intermediary of the true speaker, 
God (Acts i. 16, 6ca the prophet Joel). It is possibly, how- 
ever, not in the Gospels that the general usage illustrated by 
these passages finds its fullest or most emphatic expression; 
but rather in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the Scrip- 
tures are looked upon almost exclusively from the point of 
sight of this usage. Its height perhaps is attained in the desig- 
nation of Scripture as 7a \oyra (Rom. ill. 2, cf. Acts vil. 38, 
Heb. v. 12, I Pet. iv. 11) and the current citation of it by the 
subjectless gyotv (I Cor. vi. 16) or Aéyer (Rom. xv. 10, II Cor. 
vi. 2, Gal. 1. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14), the authoritative subject 
being taken for granted.” In the Gospels, however, we have 


place in the Gospels are probably ‘‘at the bush,” Mk. xii. 26; and “at the 
place,” Luke iv. 17. 
49 Matt. 11. 5, “through the prophet”’; Luke xviii. 31, “‘through the prophet.” 
50 Cf. The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, July 1899, p. 472, April 1900, 
4 EPA Wy gt 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 149 


sufficient illustration of the same general method of dealing 
with Scripture, side by side with their treatment of it as 
documentary authority, to evince that their writers and Jesus 
as reported by them, shared the same fundamental view- 
point.” 


On THE Terms “ Brsue,”’ “ Hoty Bisue.”’ 


The purpose of the following note is simply to bring to- 
gether what seems to be currently known of the origin of the 
terms ‘‘ Bible,’”’ ‘‘ Holy Bible.’’ No attempt has been made to 
go behind the universally accessible sources of information 
upon which the general public depends, in order to gather 
additional material. The object in view is merely to make 
plain how incomplete the accessible knowledge of the history 
of these terms is. It 1s remarkable that terms daily on the 
lips of the entire Western world should have been left until 
to-day without adequate historical explanation. The fact is, 
however, beyond doubt. In a short letter printed in The Ex- 
pository Times a few years ago™” Eb. Nestle remarks that 
‘‘nobody as yet knows how the word ‘ Bible’ found its way 
into the European languages”’ and represents even Theodor 
Zahn as declining the task of working out the story. The 


51 The é6pé6n of Matt. v. 21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43 (Cf. Rom. ix. 12, 26, Gal. iii. 16) 
is not a formula of citation, — for which we should have the perfect, etpnxev (Heb. 
iv. 3, x. 9-15, xiii. 5) — but adduces the historical fact that such teaching as is 
adduced was given to the ancients. J. A. Alexander (on Matt. v. 21) admirably 
paraphrases: “‘ You have (often) heard (it said by the scribes and leading Phar- 
isees) that our fathers were commanded not to murder, and that consequently 
he who murders (in the strict sense of the term) is liable to be condemned and 
punished under the commandment.” The subsequent instances, though in verses 
27, 31, 38, 43 more or less abridged in the introductory formula, are governed by 
the full formula of verse 21. In point of fact the commandments adduced, (with 
additions to the first and last) are all found written in the Mosaic Law. But our 
Lord does not say that they are found there; He merely says that His hearers had 
often heard from their official teachers, that they were found there — ‘‘ Ye have 
heard that it was commanded .. .” So Spanheim, J. A. Alexander, etc. 

52 1903-4, Vol. XV. pp. 565-566. 

53 What Zahn says, ‘Geschichte des N. T. Kanons”’ II. p. 944, is: ‘‘On the 
origin and earliest spread of the modern use of ‘ Bible’ among the Western peoples 
I do not venture to say anything.” 


10) REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


account which is ordinarily given is that 6uG\ta was current 
in Greek in the sense of ‘‘the Bible’’; that this was taken 
over into Latin as a feminine singular, ‘‘ Biblia’’; and that 
this form in turn passed thence into the several Western lan- 
guages.”! There is no step of this presumed process, however, 
which is beyond dispute, and a great obscurity rests upon 
the whole subject. 

Th. Zahn » enters a strong denial with respect to the basis 
of the development which is assumed. ‘‘For ra BiBdXia as a 
designation of the Old Testament,’’ he says, ‘‘no usage can be 
adduced.’’ More broadly still: ‘‘The mediaeval and modern 
employment of 7a 6.8Xia in the sense of ai ypadal, 7 ypadn, 
that is ‘Bible,’ is altogether alien to the ancient church.”’ 
The current representation on the faith of Suicer * that 7a 
G.GXta occurs first in the sense of ‘Bible’ in Chrysostom, he 
continues, is ‘‘ only a widely-spread error”’; the passages Suicer 
quotes do not support the representation. 

To justify this last assertion Zahn examines the three pas- 
sages which Suicer quotes from Chrysostom in support of his 
statement that ‘‘Scriptura Sacra is called Bi8rAta sempliciter,”’ 
and concludes that no one of them employs the term in that 
sense. In one of them — Hom. 10 in Genes. (Montfaucon, iv. 
81) not B.BAta sempliciter, but Geta BiBrta is used. In another 
— Hom. 2 on certain passages of Genesis (Montfaucon, iv. 
652) — Chrysostom declares that the Jews have no doubt 
Ta Buta, but we Christians alone tév BiBAtwy Onoavpds, — 
they Ta ypdupuara, we, however, both ra ypaupata and ra 
vonuara — not the Bible but the Pentateuch being in mind 
and the very point of the statement requiring us to take the 

64 See e. g. A. Stewart, Hastings’ DB, sub voc. ‘Bible’; W. Sanday, Hastings’ 
ERE, sub voc. ‘Bible’; Hilgenfeld, ‘‘ Kinleitung in das N. T.’’ p. 30. 

55 “Geschichte des N. T. Kanons”’ IT. pp. 943-4. 

66 Credner, “Geschichte des N. T. Kanons,” 1860, p. 229: ‘‘Further it is well 
known that for the collection of the sacred writings in general the name ra B.BNia 
(Bible) occurs first in the usage of Chrysostom (cf. “Suiceri Thesaurus,’ sub voc.).” 
Reuss, “ History of the New Testament,’ E. T. p. 326 (§ 320): “From the time of 
Chrysostom the canonical collection is called simply ra @:BNa.”’ Ersch and 


Gruber, art. “Bibel” ad init. Neither Credner’s nor Reuss’s statement is, how- 
ever, quite justified by Suicer’s words. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 151 


‘“Books”’ as merely so much paper, as the “‘letters”’ as only 
so much ink. It is on the third passage, however, that Suicer 
lays most stress, remarking of it, here ‘‘G:8dia is used ab- 
solutely and means Sacra Biblia.”’ It is found in ‘‘ Hom. ix. in 
Epist. ad Coloss.” (Montfaucon xi. 391) and runs as follows: 
“Delay not, I beseech thee: thou hast the oracles (Adya) of 
God... . Hear, I beseech you, all ye who are careful for this 
life, and procure B.BdXia dapyaka THs Yuy7js.... If you will 
have nothing else, get, then, the New [ Testament: r7v xawnv 
used absolutely as frequently in Chrysostom ], the Apostle, 
the Acts, the Gospels, constant teachers, ... This is the 
cause of all our evils, — ignorance of ras ypaddas.’’ Zahn re- 
marks: “‘It is evident that the anarthrous 6.6Xta here is not 
a name of the Bible, but designates the category ‘Books,’ 
to which, among others, the New Testament belongs; books 
too can be means of grace and constant teachers.” 

The average reader will no doubt feel that in his exami- 
nation of these passages Zahn presses his thesis a little too 
Par. 

The contrast in the second passage between the Books and 
the Treasure hidden in them, between the Letter and the 
Sense, of course, throws the emphasis on the mere Books and 
the mere Letter. But this, so far from excluding, presupposes 
rather, the technical usage of these terms, 7a 6iBAla, Ta ypay- 
para, to mean “ Bible,’ ‘‘Scripture.’’ The terms are used here 
certainly with primary reference to the Old Testament. But 
this is not to the exclusion of the New. In the third passage — 
in which the rich series of designations of Scripture brought 
together should be observed: ‘‘the Oracles of God,” ‘‘the 
New [Testament |,” ‘‘the Scriptures,’’ — it is clear enough, 
no doubt, that 8.6dia is primarily a common noun. But it 
does not seem clear that it does not contain in itself a sug- 
gestion of its use as a proper noun. Beyond question Chrys- 
ostom means by these 6.Gdta just the Bible; just the ‘‘ Oracles 
of God” of which he had spoken immediately before, in- 
clusive of the New Testament of which he immediately after- 
wards speaks, and constituting ‘‘the Scriptures’’ of which he 


152 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


speaks somewhat further on. He speaks of these Bible books 
as remedial, and of course he speaks generally without an 
article. The case is like the anarthrous lepa ypaupara of Il Tim. 
iii. 16, or the anarthrous ‘Bible’ when we congratulate our- 
selves that we live ‘‘in a land of an open Bible’’; in both of 
which instances the term is technical enough. When Chrys- 
ostom exhorted his hearers to get for themselves 6.8Ata which 
will be medicaments for their souls, they caught under the 
common noun 6.GXta the implication of the technical 7a fi- 
Bdtia. These passages of Chrysostom, after all would seem then 
to bear witness to the currency of the term 7a 6.8Xta as the 
synonym of ai ypadati, 7 ypadn. 

But why should we confine ourselves to the passages cited 
by Suicer? Sophocles defines ra B.BXta, if not, like Suicer, as 
the sacred Books of the Christians, yet, similiarly, as ‘“‘the 
Sacred Books of the Hebrews,’”’ quoting for his definition the 
Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, I Mace. xii. 9 (ra &yua), Josephus, 
‘Contr. Apion.,” i. 8; and Clem. Alex. [Migne] i. 668 B, 
Origen, [ Migne] i. 1276, C. The three Jewish citations we 
may leave for the moment to one side: in any case they do 
not present us with an absolute 7a B.GAta, meaning ‘‘the 
Scriptures.’ Clement and Origen take us back two hundred 
years before Chrysostom. 

In the passage cited from Clement — it is ‘‘ Paedagog.” 
ili. xii. med. — Clement is speaking of the goodness of the In- 
structor in setting forth his salutary commandments in the 
great variety of the Scriptures. He had adduced our Lord’s 
great summary of the Law (Matt. xxii. 37-40) and His in- 
junction to therich young man “‘to keep the commandments” ; 
and taking a new beginning from this injunction, he enlarges 
on the Decalogue. ‘‘ These things,’’ he remarks, ‘‘are to be 
observed,’’ — and not these only, but along with them, ‘‘ what- 
soever else we see prescribed for us as we read ra BiBNXia.”’ 
For example there is Isaiah i. 10, 17, 18, and the declaration 
of Scripture that ‘‘good works are an acceptable prayer to 
the Lord’’ — whatever the passage may be which Clement 
may have had in mind when he wrote this. It is scarcely dis- 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 153 


putable that by ra G:GXta here, used absolutely, there is meant 
just ‘‘the Sacred Books,”’ that is to say, ‘‘the Bible.’’ The 
immediately preceding reference is to the Decalogue, and the 
immediately contiguous ones are to the Old Testament. But 
it seems hardly possible to contend that ra 6.GdAta therefore 
means here either the Decalogue, or the Pentateuch, or the 
Old Testament, distinctively. It is altogether more probable 
that it is equally comprehensive with the ai ypadat of the 
closely preceding context. We cannot accord with Sophocles’ 
opinion, then, that 7a B.GAta here means ‘‘the Sacred Books 
of the Hebrews’’: it seems to us to mean ‘‘the Sacred Books 
of the Christians.’’ 

The passage cited by hatha from Origen is “‘Contra 
Celsum”’ v. 60 (Ed. Koetschau, 1899, li. p. 63: 22. 23). In it 
the Hebrew Scriptures are clearly referred to by 7a 6rBria. It 
declares that Jews and Christians alike ‘‘confess that 7a Bi- 
Gta were written by the Divine Spirit.’”’ But it does not follow 
that 7a B.8A\ta means with Origen the Old Testament as dis- 
tinguished from the New, though Koetschau seems inclined 
to hold this to be the fact. ‘‘The Books of the Holy Scrip- 
tures,’ he writes (Prolegom. i. p. xxxii.), “are with Origen 
generally designated deta BiBrta, ypadn (ypadat) or ypappara; 
those of the Old Testament, 6.8ria, tahara ypadn or radara 
ypappara.’’ This would seem to say that the absolute 7a fu- 
BXta with Origen is the synonym not of 4 ypa@y but of 7 7a- 
Nata ypady, not of Ta ypadupyata but of Ta madara ypapmara. 
There seems to be nothing in the Contra “ Celsum,” to be 
sure, which will decisively refute this opinion. There we read 
of ‘‘the sacred Bi8Xta of the Jews”’ or ‘‘ of the Hebrews ’’ (Koet- 
schau, i. 304, 26; 305, 6): of ‘“‘the G:GAta which the prophets 
wrote in Hebrew” (ii. 208, 22; cf., i. 291, 12), or simply of 
‘“‘the Bi8rta of the Jews”’ (ii. 93, 18); but nowhere else than 
in v. 60 (so far as Koetschau’s confessedly incomplete index 
indicates) do we meet with absolute 7a 6.6dia in the sense of 
‘The Scriptures.” *’ But what shall we make of a passage like 


57 At ii. 120, 22, we read of “‘the book of Genesis,” and at various passages of 
secular “books” (ii. 63, 4; 58, 17; 109, 15; 152, 26; 293, 1.). 


154 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the following from the ‘Fourteenth Homily on Jeremiah’ 
(§ 12: Ed. Klostermann, 1901, p. 117, line 4)? “‘‘ For thy sins, 
then, will I give thy treasures for a spoil.’ And he gave the 
treasures of the Jews to us, for they were the first to believe 
Ta \dyia Tod Geod, and only after them did we believe, God 
having taken the \éy.a away from them and given them to 
us. And we say that ‘the kingdom shall be taken away from 
them by God and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof’ has been said by the Saviour and shall be fulfilled. 
Not that 7 ypad7 has been taken away from them, but now, 
though they have the Law and the Prophets they do not 
understand the meaning that is in them. For they have ra 
6.BAta. But how was the kingdom of God taken from them? 
The meaning tv ypadav was taken from them,” etc. It is 
worth while to pause and note the rich synonymy of ‘“‘the 
Scriptures”? here. And, noting it, we may well ask whether, 
if ra BiGAta, because it is used here with the eye on the He- 
brew Scriptures, is to be taken as meaning distinctively the 
Hebrew Scriptures, this same is not true also of 7a \oyra and 
n ypabn and ai ypadat. There is a subtle propriety in the ad- 
justment of these three terms to the exact place in which 
each appears in the argument. Aéyra emphasizes the divine 
origin of the Scriptures; 8.GAta looks upon them from the 
point of view of their external form; ypad7, of their significant 
contents. The terms could not be interchanged without some 
loss of exactness of speech: 6.8dta accordingly stands where 
it does because it expresses the externalia of the Scriptures, 
sets them before us as ‘‘nothing but books’? — so much paper. 
But in their general connotation the three terms are coex- 
tensive, and there is no reason for narrowing Ta B.BAta to 
‘the Old Testament”’ because it refers to the Old Testament 
here, which will not apply as well to ra \oyra and to 4 ypadn, 
ai ypapat. There is preserved for us in the “‘ Philocalia’’ (Ch. 
v., ed. Robinson, 1893, pp. 48-48) a remarkable fragment 
of the Fifth Book of Origen’s ‘Commentary on John’ (ed. 
Preuschen, 1903, pp. 100-105), in which Origen, speaking to 
the text, ‘‘ Of the making of many books there is no end,’’ rings 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 155 


the changes on 8:GXtov and B.BAta and leaves a strong impres- 
sion on the reader’s mind that to him 7a 6.6\ta would be ex- 
actly synonymous with 7a eta BiBdia. ‘‘ But since,” says he 
(Preuschen, p. 103, 12), ‘‘the proofs of this must be drawn 
from T7s Delas ypadjs, it will be most satisfactorily established 
if I am able to show that it is not in one Book only that it 
is written among us concerning Christ — taking ra BiBdta in 
its common sense. For we find it written in the Pentateuch,”’ 
etc. Origen here, by telling us that 7a B.GX\ia has a common 
sense, tells us also that it has a special sense, and that in this 
special sense it includes alike the New Testament in which 
we should expect to find Christ spoken of, and the Penta- 
teuch where also He is spoken of; in a word it is the exact 
synonym of 77 deta ypady.® 

If we do not quite learn from Clement and Origen, there- 
fore, — as Sophocles would have us learn — that, because 
it is used of the Sacred Books of the Hebrews, 7a B.BXia 
means distinctively the ‘‘Sacred Books of the Hebrews,” we 
do learn what Zahn would not have us learn, that it is used 
absolutely in the sense of ‘‘the Sacred Scriptures.’’? We must 
now take note of the fact, however, that Zahn’s primary 
object was to deny not that 7a B.BdAia, absolutely used, could 
mean ‘‘the Sacred Books,”’ but precisely that it could mean 
the Sacred Books of the Hebrews — the Old Testament. His 
primary statement is that no usage can be adduced of 7a 
6.Bria as a designation distinctively of the Old Testament. 
He is discussing the reading of a clause in II Clemens 
Rom. xiv. This clause couples together (in the Constanti- 
nople MS. followed by Lightfoot) ra 6iBXia Kai ot adarToXoL, 
which, as Lightfoot remarks, is a rough designation of the 
Old and New Testaments. On the testimony of the Syriac 
version Zahn reads ta B.BAla Tay tpodyTav Kat ot aroaToXoL, 
and to strengthen his position argues that absolute 7a BiBXia 


58 Preuschen indexes the following further occurrences of the plural 7a BiBdia 
(apart from the passage, pp. 100-105) in the ‘Commentary on John:”’ p. 40, 21, 
Ta THs Kas SeaOhkns BrBrta; 117, 19, de’ Srdwv rdv ayiwy BiBriwv. At p. 9, 24 Origen 
opens an inquiry as to why raira ra BiBdia — that is the Gospels, — are called by 
the singular title of eayyédtov. 


156 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


for ‘“‘the Old Testament”’ is unexampled. We have already 
seen enough to prove to us that absolute 7a BiBAta was quite 
readily used to designate the Old Testament — because the 
Old Testament was part of the Scriptures, that is of 7a 
6.6\ia in their pregnant sense. But whether ra Bi6A\ta was 
used distinctively of the Old Testament — when the Old 
Testament was set over against the New —is another 
question. 

This question need not wait long, however, for an answer. 
It cannot be doubted, and it is not doubted, that the Jews 
called their sacred writings, by way of eminence, ‘‘the 
Books.”’ As Zahn very exactly declares * the Hebrew o™5o7 
(Mishna Megilla i. 8) certainly underlies the usage of at 
ypadat, 7 ypad7n in the general sense of ‘‘the Bible.’’ The 
antiquity of this phrase may be estimated from its occurrence 
in Daniel ix. 2: ‘‘I Daniel understood by ‘the Books’ ...’’: 
‘that is,’ says Driver, commenting on the passage, ‘“‘the 
sacred books, the Scriptures”’ (cf. => in Ps. xl. 8, Is. xxix. 
18). The Greek rendering of this passage gives us to be 
sure ai BiBXo. rather than ra BiBAta. But already in I Macc. 
xll. 9 we have the full phrase of which ra 6.6Xia is the natu- 
ral abbreviation —7a B.BX\ta Ta G&yva, while Josephus gives 
us the parallel 7a tepa BiGAia: and. from these phrases ra 
6.B8ria could not fail to be extracted, just as ypadat, was ex- 
tracted from ai adytar ypadat, ai iepat ypadat, and the like. 
We meet with no surprise therefore the appearance of Ta 
6.Bria in II Clems. xiv, as a distinctive designation of the 
Old Testament. It only advertises to us, what we knew be- 
forehand, that the Old Testament was ‘‘the Books’’ before 
both Old and New Testaments were subsumed under that 
title, and that usage, in a community made up partly of 
Jews, for a time conserved, without prejudice to the equal 
authority of the New Testament Books, some lingering remi- 
niscence of the older habit of speech. How easily the Old 
Testament might continue to be called ra B.6Xla after the 
term had come to include New Books as well, may be illus- 

59 “ Geschichte,” etc. I. 87, note 1. 


ELE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 157 


trated by a tendency which is observable in the earlier 
English usage of the word “ Bible”’ (persisting even yet dia- 
lectically) to employ it of the Old Testament distinctively — 
as in the phrase ‘‘ The Bible and the Testament,’ — not, of 
course, with any implication of inferiority for the New Testa- 
ment books.” How long such a tendency to think of the Old 
Testament especially when the term ra 6.8d\ia was heard 
continued to manifest itself in the early church, it would 
require a delicate investigation to determine. It is enough 
for the moment to note that II Clems. xiv witnesses to the 
presence of such a tendency in the first age, while such 
phrases as meet us in Melito of Sardis *' — ra madara BiBNia, 
Ta THS TWadaas drabjKyns BiGAta — warn us that the new con- 
ditions of the New Covenant with its New Books were al- 
ready requiring a distinction, among the 7a B.BA\ia by way 
of eminence, between the New and the Old Books which 
made up the whole. Ta 6:6dta in a word to Jew and Chris- 
tian alike meant just ‘‘the Holy Books,” ‘‘the Books” by 
way of eminence, by the side of which could stand no others; 
and though ear and lip needed a space to adjust themselves 
to the increased content of the phrase when Christianity 
came bringing with it its contribution to the unitary collec- 
tion, yet the adjustment was quickly made and if the mem- 
ory of the earlier usage persisted for a while, 7a 6.6Xia in 
Christian circles meant from the beginning in principle the 
whole body of Sacred Books and rapidly came to mean in 
practice nothing less. 

We cannot agree with Zahn, then, that the usage of ra 
B.6Xta in the early church provides no basis upon which the 
development of our term ‘‘Bible’’ could have taken place. 
But when we come to take the next step in the development 
of that term, we are constrained to assent to Nestle’s decla- 
ration that nobody knows how the term “‘ Bible” found its 
way into the European languages. The Latins did not take 


60 See the passages from the Oxford ‘Dictionary of the English Language,’’ 
in note 82 below. 
61 Otto: ix. 414. 


158 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


over the Greek word £.8Xia, or its cognate BiBdo, to desig- 
nate the Biblical books. They had in their own Liber a term 
which had already acquired a pregnant sense ‘‘in religion 
and public law’? — as expressing ‘‘a religious book, Scrip- 
ture, a statute book, codex” °; and which therefore readily 
lent itself to employment as the representative of the preg- 
nant Greek terms which it translates, though it scarcely 
seems to have attained so absolute a use. Accordingly we 
find in use in the early church side by side with such Greek 
phrases as Ta BiBAla THs Tadaas, THs Kaw7s Scabhkns, the Latin 
phrases, Libri veterts, novi testamentr, (federis):° and over 
against the Greek 6.8dia kavovixd, the Latin libri regulares, 
or as Rufinus puts it, libri inter canonem conclusi.“ Jerome 
gave currency to the very appropriate term Bibliotheca as 
the designation of the corpus of the Sacred Books; and this 
term became later the technical term perhaps most fre- 
quently employed, so that Martianaeus in his “‘ Prolegomena 
in divinam bibliothecam Hieron.” i. §$1,° speaking de nomine 
Bibliothecae Dwine, can very fairly say, ‘‘among the ancients, 
the sacred volume which we, at the present time, call Biblia, 
obtained the name of Bibliotheca Divina.” There is no 
trace of such a word as “‘ Biblia”’ in Patristic Latin, and no 
such word is entered in the Latin Lexicons, — not even in 


6 Andrews’ “ Latin-English Lexicon,”’ sub voc. 

6 Reuss, E. T. p. 308, § 303. 

64 Reuss, p. 321, § 316. 

6 Migne, “ Patrol. Lat.’’ xxviii. (“Hieron.”’ vol. 14) pp. 33-34. 

& M. Kahler, ““Dogmatische Zeitfragen,’’? I. p. 362, writes: ‘It was very 
harmlessly intended and was not in contradiction of the usage followed by Christ 
Himself, when the Holy Scripture was called a Bibliotheca. ... As, however, that 
designation ‘Bibliotheca’ never became the dominant one, and the Biblical one, 
‘the Scripture,’ alone ultimately maintained itself, so the comprehensive name, 
‘the Bible,’ attained general currency in the West before the ninth century.”’ On 
this last point, he had already said, (p. 232 note 1): ‘‘As a popular designation 
‘Biblia’ was in use long before its earliest provable occurrence in the ninth cen- 
tury,” with appeal to: “Eb. Nestle, Beil. zur Allg. Z. 1904, No. 90, p. 117,” — 
an article to which we have not access, though possibly we have its essential con- 
tents in the contemporarily printed note in the Expository Times, mentioned at 
the beginning of this discussion. It can be said that ‘Bibliotheca’ never became 
the dominant designation of the Scriptures only in contrast with such a desig- 
nation as ‘‘the Scriptures.’’ 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 159 


the great Latin ‘“‘Thesaurus”’ now publishing by the German 
Universities. We shall have to come to Du Cange’s “Gloss. 
Med. et Inf. Latinitatis’’ to discover it. And when we discover 
it we are told very little about it except of its existence in the 
Latin of the early middle ages, and shortly afterwards in the 
vernaculars of the West. 

There seems to be no serious inherent difficulty in con- 
ceiving the passage of a Greek neuter plural into Latin as a 
feminine singular. The thing appears not to be unexampled, 
and so might have happened to 6.6Xia. What we lack is clear 
evidence that 8.Gdta did pass into “‘ Biblia,’’ and exact infor- 
mation of the stages and processes by which the feat was 
accomplished. And the difficulty of the problem is vastly in- 
creased by the circumstances that the time when the trans- 
ference is supposed to have taken place was not a time when 
there was rich intercourse between the East and the West, 
in which borrowing of terms would have been easy and 
natural; and that there was no obvious need upon the part 
of the West for such a term, which would render its borrow- 
ing of it natural. Yet the term is supposed to have been taken 
over with such completeness and heartiness as to have be- 
come the parent of the common nomenclature of the Scrip- 
tures in all the Western languages.” The difficulties raised 
by these considerations are so great that one finds himself 
questioning whether the origin of the term ‘‘ Biblia” in Me- 
diaeval Latin and of its descendants in the Western languages 
can be accounted for after the fashion suggested, and whether 
some other conjectural explanation of their origin might not 
wisely be sought for — as, for example, a contraction of the 
commonly current term ‘“bibliotheca.’’ ® Some color might 
be lent to such a conjecture by the fact that ‘‘ Biblia’ and 
its descendants seem to have been from the first in use not 

67 Grimm, sub voc. ‘‘Bibel,’’ enumerates as follows: Italian, bibbia, Spanish, 
biblia, French, bible, Middle High German, biblie, Dutch, bijbel, Islandic, biflja, 
Russian and Lithuanian, biblija, Polish, biblia, Bohemian, 6ibly, etc. 

68 The Latin ‘‘ Thesaurus”’ tells us that “‘ bibliotheca ’’ occurs in titles vari- 
ously contracted: ‘Compendia in titulis: by., byb., bybl., byblio., bibliot.,”’ and in 
even completer forms. 


160 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


merely in an ecclesiastical but also in a common sense — as 
designations, that is, not merely of the Scriptures but of any 
large book.® Appeal might be made also to the ease with 
which the two terms ‘ Biblia’ and ‘ Bibliotheca’ took one the 
other’s place down at least to the fifteenth century.”” What 
we need, however, is not conjectures but a series of ascer- 
tained facts, and these are at the moment at our disposal in 
very insufficient measure. 

Du Cange can tell us only that the word “ Biblia”’ occurs 
in the “‘Imitatio Christi” I i. 3,” and in the “ Diarium Belli 
Hussitici,’”’ adding a quotation from a Chronicle, at the year 
1228, to the effect that ‘‘Stephen, archibishop of Canter- 
bury ... made postils super totam Bibliam.”’ To this Diefen- 
bach in the ‘“Glossarium,” which he published (1857) as a 
supplement to Du Cange, merely adds an intimation that 
certain fifteenth century glossaries contain ‘‘ Biblia’’ in the 
sense of a “large book,’’ ” as also ‘‘Biblie” and ‘‘Bibel”’ 
(German). Becker in his “ Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui’’ is 
able to cite earlier examples of “Biblia” from old catalogues 
of libraries. The earliest — from the ninth century — comes 
from the catalogue of an unknown French library; next in 
age are two twelfth century examples — one from Monte 
Cassiro and the other from Stederburg in Brunswick. The 
English Latin catalogues in which he finds it begin with one 
of the books at Durham, dating from 1266,” and by that 


6° See Diefenbach’s addenda to Du Cange, sub voc. ‘‘ Biblia.”” The Oxford Dic- 
tionary gives English examples from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries: e. g. 
1377, Lang. “ Piers Pl.” B. xv. 87; ‘Of this matere I mygte mak a long bible”’; 
1542, Udall, Erasm. ‘‘ Apophth,” 205a, ‘‘When he had read a long bible written 
and sent to hym from Antipater.” (The quotation from Z. Boyd 1629 does not 
seem to us to belong here). 

70 This is adverted to in the Oxford Dictionary, sub voc. ‘‘ Bible.’”’ The follow- 
ing citations are given: 1382, Wyclif, 2 Macc. ii. 13, ‘‘He makynge a litil bible 
(Vulg. bibliothecam) gadride of cuntrees bokis”’; c. 1425, in Wr.-Wiilcker, Voc. 
648, Bibleoteca, bybulle; 1483 Cath. Angl. 31, A Bybylle, biblia, bibliotheca. 

71 $1 scires totam Bibliam. 72 “Biblia, eyn gross buch.” 

73 Cf. Eb. Nestle, The Expository Times, xv. pp. 565-566. The citation given 
in the Oxford Dictionary from an Anglo-Latin occurrence of ‘‘biblia’’ in 1095 — 
viz. from the Catalogue of the Lindisfarne books — Nestle shows to rest on an 
error. This catalogue dates from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 161 


time the word was already in use in English,” and of course 
in French,” since the English usage rests on the French. 
How early it appears in the modern European languages we 
lack data to inform us. The German examples which Diefen- 
bach quotes are from the fifteenth century and those which 
Heyne gives from the sixteenth,” while Grimm cites none 
earlier than the seventeenth. But if the Low-German “‘ Fibel’’ 
is really a derivative of ‘‘ Bibel,’’ the common use of ‘‘ Bibel”’ 
must have antedated the fifteenth century.” Littré gives no 
French example earlier than Joinville, who wrote at the be- 
ginning of the fourteenth century (13809). Its French usage 
must go well back of this, however, for as we have seen it 
had come from French into Middle English by that date. 
The name in ordinary use throughout the Middle Ages for 
what we call the ‘“‘Bible’’ was ‘‘ Bibliotheca,’’ and we ac- 
cordingly find that in Old English (Anglo-Saxon) “ biblio- 
théce’’ alone occurs in this sense.” From the fourteenth 


™% The Oxford Dictionary cites from c. 13800, Cursor M. 1900: ‘‘ As the bibul 
sais’’; from 1330, R. Brunne, Chron. 290: ‘‘The bible may not lie.” 

% Littré (“Dictionaire de la Langue Francaise’ I. sub voc.) cites only: 
“HIST. xiii’s. — Un cordelier vint 4 li au chastel de Yeres [Hiéres ] et pour en- 
seigner le roi, dit en son sermon, que il avoit leu la Bible et les livres qui parlent 
des princes mescreans, Jornv. 199.”’ To this may be added Joinville, ‘‘ Histoire de 
Saint Louis,’”’ Paris, Didot, 1874, p. 310 (cxi. 569): ‘ L’endemain s’ala logier li roys 
devant la citei d’Arsur que l’on appelle Tyri en la Bible.” On p. 320 (cxili. 583) 
“Bible” occurs in the sense of ‘‘ Balista,”’ cf. Du Cange, sub voc. ‘‘ Biblia I.”’ The 
Century and the Standard Dictionaries both record this usage for English. 

76 Heyne, ‘Deutsches Wérterbuch”’ I. 1890, tells us sub voc. that Bibel is a 
borrowed word from the Greek neuter-plural Biblia, ‘‘ Books,” which since the late 
Middle-High-German, as in Middle Latin, has been looked on as a feminine 
singular, first in a form nearer to the Latin, and afterwards in that now current — 
with a reference to Diefenbach. His earliest citations are from Luther, who still has 
(“D. christliche Adel,’ 1520) “die biblien, das heilig gotis wort,’’ but elsewhere 
(“‘ Wider die himlischen Proph.’’ 1525): ‘‘aus meine verdeutschten bibel.”’ 

77 Cf. F. Kluge, “Etymologisches Wérterbuch d. deutschen Sprache,’ 62. 
ed. 1905 sub voc. “‘Fibel,’’ where we are told that it was entered in Low-German 
Glossaries of the fifteenth century (first in 1419), was used by Luther, and duly | 
registered since Henisch 1616. Kluge classifies ‘‘ Bibel’”’ as a Middle-High-German 
word.” 

78 The Oxford Dictionary says: “In O. E. bibliotheca alone occurs.’”’ Nestle 
l. c. says: ‘‘The name commonly used throughout the Middle Ages was Biblio- 
theca’”’; and accordingly in O. E. and all mediaeval writers this term is used for . 


162 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


century on, however, ‘‘Bible”’ takes the place of ‘‘ Biblio- 
théce.’’ Chaucer uses it freely in both the ecclesiastical and 
common senses.”? Purvey uses it as a word well-known in 
common currency, referring naturally to ‘‘the Bible late 
translated,’’ and to that ‘‘simple creature”’ (as he called him- 
self) ‘‘who hath translated the Bible out of the Latin into 
the English.” The rapidity with which the term entered into 
general usage may be divined from the examples given by 
Richardson and Murray. 

These lexicographers record no example, however, of the 
occurrence of the compound term, ‘‘The Holy Bible.” It 
seems that this combination was somewhat late in establish- 
ing itself as the stated designation of the sacred book in 
English. It first finds a place on the title-page of an English 
Bible in the so-called ‘‘ Bishops’ Bible,’”’ the earliest issue of 
which dates from 1568: “The. holie. Bible. | conteynyng the 
olde | Testament and the newe.” | ® It, of course, continues 
on the title-pages of the numerous subsequent issues of this 
edition,” but it does not otherwise occur on the title-page of 
English Bibles until the appearance of the Douai Old Testa- 
ment of 1610: ‘‘The | Holie Bible | ....’? The Rheims trans- 


complete Mss. of Old and New Testaments. The Anglo-Saxons also used “‘ge- 
writ’’ when speaking of the Bible. 

79In the ecclesiastical sense: ‘Canterbury Tales:” Prolog. 1. 438, ‘His 
studie was but litel on the Bible’’; ‘“Pardoner’s Tale,’’ 1. 4652, ‘‘Looketh the 
Bible, and ther ye may it leere’”’; ‘‘The Wife’s Preamble,” 1. 10729, ‘He knew of 
hem mo legendes and lyves | Than been of goode wyves in the Bible.” In the gen- 
eral sense: ‘Canterbury Tales,” Prol. to Canon’s ‘‘ Yeoman’s Tale,” 1. 17257, “To 
tellen al wolde passen any Bible | That owher is”; “House of Fame,” 1. 1334 
(Book ii. 1. 244), If all the arms of the people he saw in his dream were described, 
““men myght make of hem a Bible twenty foote thykke.”’ 

80 The editio princeps of the English Bible (Coverdale, 1535) bears the title: 
“Biblia | The Byble: that | is the holy Scrypture of the | Olde and New Testa- 
ment.” Matthew’s Bible, of 1537, has: ‘The Byble, | which is all the holy Scrip- | 
ture: In whych are contayned the | Olde and Newe Testament —” Taverner’s 
Bible, of 1539, has: ‘‘The most | sacred Bible, | whiche is the holy scripture, 
con- | teyning the old and new testament.” The very popular and frequently re- 
printed “Genevan Bible” called itself, edition 1560: ‘The Bible | and | Holy 
Scriptures | conteyned in| the olde and Newe | Testament.” 

8. WH. g. 1573, 1574, 1575 bis, 1576, 1577 bis, 1578, 1584, 1585, 1588, 1591, 
1595, 1602. 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 163 


lators, in the preface of their New Testament, published in 
1582, had indeed spoken of ‘“‘the holy Bible”’ as ‘‘long since 
translated by us into English, and the Old Testament lying 
by us for lacke of goode meanes to publish the whole in such 
sort as a worke of so great charge and importance requireth’”’ ; 
from which we may learn that, though the volume of 1610 
contains only the Old Testament, the term ‘‘The Holie 
Bible’’ upon its title is not to be confined to the Old Testa- 
ment, as sometimes the phrase was confined in its Old Eng- 
lish use.” The adoption of the term ‘‘The Holy Bible”’ 
for the title-page of King James’ version of 1611: ‘The | 
Holy Bible, | conteyning the Old Testament, | and the 
New | ,” finally fixed it as the technical designation of the 
book in English. 

It is natural to assume that the current title of the Vul- 
gate Latin Bible with which we are familiar — “‘ Biblia Sacra”’ 
— lay behind this English development; but it would be a 
mistake to suppose that this was by any means the constant 
designation of the Latin Bible in the earlier centuries of its 
printing. A hasty glance over the lists of editions recorded 
in Masch’s Le Long (iii.) indeed leaves the impression that it 
was only after the publication of the “‘authorized’”?’ Roman 
edition of 1590, ‘‘ Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis,’’ that this 
designation finally established itself as regular; though it was, 
of course, frequently employed before that. The original edi- 
tion of John Fust and Peter Schoeffer indeed is described by 
Le Long (p. 98) as ‘“‘Biblia Sacra Latina juxta Vulgatam 
editionem II vol. in folio.’ And the title of the great Com- 
plutensian Polyglot (1514-1517) is given as ‘‘ Biblia Sacra.”’ ® 
But these are not the actual titles of these books, and it is 


82 In the Oxford Dictionary are found the following examples of this odd usage 
from the sixteenth century: Rastell, ‘Bk. Purgat.”’ I. 1. ‘‘ Neyther of the bokys of 
the olde byble nor of the newe testament”; 1587, Golding, ‘De Mornay,’’ xxiv. 
357, ‘‘Certaine bookes which we call the Bible or Olde Testament.” It may not be 
out of place to note that Rastell wrote as a Romanist, Golding as a Protestant 
controversialist. 

83 This is the actual title of the Antwerp Polyglot, 1569-1572, and of Walton’s 
Polyglot, 1657; bu; not of the Paris Polyglot. 


164 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


not until near the opening of the second quarter of the six- 
teenth century that ‘‘ Biblia Sacra”’ begins to appear on the 
title-pages of the Latin Bibles which were pouring from the 
press.*? Osiander’s edition (Norimbergae, 1522) has it: 
‘‘ Biblia sacra utriusque Testamenti,” (p. 309), and of course 
transmitted it to its reprints (1523, 1527, 1529, 1530, 1548, 
1559, 1564); Knoblauch’s contemporary edition, on the other 
hand, (Argentorati, 1522) has rather: ‘‘ Biblia sacrae scrip- 
turae Veteris omnia’’ (p. 314). Among Catholic editions, 
one printed at Cologne in 1527: ‘‘Biblia sacra utriusque 
Testamenti’’ (p. 178), seems to be the earliest recorded by 
Le Long, which has this designation. It seems to have been, 
however, a Paris edition of the next year (1528): “ Biblia 
sacra: integrum utriusque testamenti corpus completens,”’ 
(repeated in 1534, 1543, 1548, 1549, 1550, 1551, 1552, 1560) 
which set the fashion of it. Somewhat equivalent forms ap- 
pear by its side, such as: ‘‘ Biblia Bibliorum opus sacrosanc- 
tum”’ (Lugduni, 15382), ‘‘Biblie sacre Textus’”’ (Lugduni, 
1531), and especially ‘‘ Biblia Sacrosancta’”’ (Lugduni, 1532, 
1535, 1536, 1544, 1546, 1556, 1562: Basiliae 1547, 1551, 1557, 
1562, 1569, 1578). But none of these became fixed as the 
technical designation of the volume, as Biblia Sacra tended 
to become from the opening of the second quarter of the six- 
teenth century, and ended by fairly becoming before that 
century closed. 

The Romance languages seem to have followed this grow- 


8 The editio princeps has no title page; and the Complutensian Polyglot no 
general title-page. Cf. Fr. Kaulen, “Geschichte der Vulgata,”’ 1868, pp. 305-6: — 
‘The first editions contain only the naked text of the Vulgate, together with the 
Introductions of St. Jerome and the old Argumenta, as they appear already in 
the ‘Codex Amiatinus.”’ A proper title is at first not present; and neither the 
sheets nor the pages show numeration. Instead of the title, the front page bears 
commonly a heading in large type: Incipit prologus sanctt iheronymi, incipit epis- 
tola scti theronymi ad paulinum, prologus biblie, and the like. The folio edition of 
Basle, 1487, bears as title merely the one word, ‘Biblia.’. . . In a Nuremberg Bible 
of 1471 there stands for the first time as title, ‘Biblia Vulgata’... By far the 
most common title is ‘Biblia Latina,’ accompanied in later editions by some 
addition giving the contents.” 

8 Brylinger’s edition, Basiliae, 1544 (1551, 1557, 1562, 1569, 1578) has: 
‘Biblia Sacrosancta’’? — 


“THE SCRIPTURES,” IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 165 


ing Latin custom in the designation of their Bibles, although 
examples of the simple nomenclature persist (e. g., La Buble 
qui est toute la sainte escriture, Geneva, 1562, 1622, 1638, 1657, 
etc.). Among the Teutonic races, other than the English, 
however, it has been slower in taking root. German Bibles 
still call themselves ‘‘Biblia, das ist: die gantze Heilige 
Schrift,’ or in more modern form, ‘‘ Die Bibel, oder die ganze 
Heilige Schrift,’ and Dutch Bibles similiarly, ‘‘ Biblia, dat 
is de gantsche H. Schrifture,”’ or more modernly, ‘‘ Bijbel, 
dat is de gansche Heilige Schrift.’’ Doubtless ‘‘die heilige 
Bibel”’ or ‘‘de heilige Bybel’’ — though not unexampled, — 
would seem somewhat harsh and unusual to Teutonic ears. 
Strange to say they would take more kindly apparently to 
such a phrase as “‘ Das heilige Bibelbuch.”’ 

Our common phrase, ‘‘The Holy Bible,” thus reveals it- 
self as probably a sixteenth century usage, which has not 
yet been made the common property of the Christian world. 
In its substantive, it rests on an as yet insufficiently ex- 
plained mediaeval usage, not yet traced further back than 
the ninth century. This usage in turn is commonly assigned 
for its origin to a borrowing from the Greek churches of their 
customary use of Ta BiBAta to designate the Scriptures. Be- 
hind this lies a Jewish manner of speech. This appears to be 
all that can as yet be affirmed of the origin of our common 
term: ‘‘ The Holy Bible.”’ 


++] 


iss Saeed 


=" le by th 
es a 
Peake alanis |i); 
1s . wh + ey in 
ya oo y : : ‘ 
1% hen art 
r ors “, 4 ay 
cA, » * int ; i 
Por ; 5 
5 M4 
Ms TRY was | a ve | 
_) ’ Fe ad 
{ 
i 4 } 
1 4 
‘ hy 1 4 Lan 
; ee > Petar ee 
i ty he Me " 
Vy got Vs 
fs = iy 
i 4 , 
Li, ’ 
} i } 
bask a eae 
> ol ¢ v<e 
Pal g a : 
‘ if 
i 7% ' 
vers 
i 
' i 
+(e 
4 dk | 
. 1 ; . a 
‘ 
q 
o] J 
2, 
# ' 
; 
uJ 
' be + ’ 
. a7 
« bd j 
44 
sk eee 
; i 
Mi Wat 
i? a Pf) 
r) La 
be ‘ aa - 
; oh : , quai 
ng t 
+ vate ie ye 
, 7 j 1 f 
ee aig 
5 
T ; My Nod : 
-s bt ee ee 
var Cor ns he tly i 
eae ie / x, 


oat 
wR a 





VI 
THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION’? 


A GREAT deal is being said of late of ‘‘ the present problem 
of inspiration,” with a general implication that the Christian 
doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures has been 
brought into straits by modern investigation, and needs now to 
adapt itself to certain assured but damaging results of the sci- 
entific study of the Bible. Thus, because of an assumed “ pres- 
ent distress,’ Canon Cheyne, in a paper read at the English 
Church Congress of 1888, commended a most revolutionary 
book of Mr. R. F. Horton’s, called ‘Inspiration and the 
Bible,” * which explains away inspiration properly so called al- 
together, as the best book he could think of on the subject. And 
Mr. Charles Gore defends the concessive method of treating 
‘the subject of inspiration adopted in “ Lux Mundi,” by the 
plea that the purpose of the writers of that volume “ was ‘ to 
succour a distressed faith,’ by endeavoring to bring the Chris- 
tian creed into its right relation to the modern growth of 
knowledge, scientific, historical, critical.” * On our side of the 
water, Dr. Washington Gladden has published a volume which 
begins by presenting certain “ new ” views of the structure of 
the books of the Bible as established facts, and proceeds to the 
conclusion that: ‘“ Evidently neither the theory of verbal in- 
spiration nor the theory of plenary inspiration can be made to 
fit the facts which a careful study of the writings themselves 
brings before us. These writings are not inspired in the sense 
which we have commonly given to that word.” Accordingly he 
recommends that under the pressure of these new views we ad- 
mit not only that the Bible is not “ infallible,” but that its laws 


1 From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, v. iv, 1893. pp. 177-221. 

2 “Tnspiration and the Bible.” An Inquiry. By Robert F. Horton, M.A., 
Late Fellow of New College, Oxford. Fourth Edition. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 
1889. 

8 “ Lux Mundi.” Tenth Edition. London: John Murray, 1890. P. xi. 


170 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


) 


are “inadequate” and “ morally defective,” and its untrust- 
worthiness as a religious teacher is so great that it gives us 
in places “blurred and distorted ideas about God and His 
truth.” * And Prof. Joseph H. Thayer has published a lecture 
which represents as necessitated by the facts as now known, 
such a change of attitude towards the Bible as will reject the 
whole Reformed doctrine of the Scriptures in favor of a more 
“ Catholic ” view which will look upon some of the history re- 
corded in the Bible as only “ fairly trustworthy,” and will ex- 
pect no intelligent reader to consider the exegesis of the New 
Testament writers satisfactory.° A radical change in our con- 
ception of the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God is thus 
- pressed upon us as now necessary by a considerable number of 
writers, representing quite a variety of schools of Christian 
thought. 

Nevertheless the situation is not one which can be fairly 
described as putting the old doctrine of inspiration in jeopardy. 
The exact state of the case is rather this: that a special school 
of Old Testament criticism, which has, for some years, been 
gaining somewhat widespread acceptance of its results, has be- 
gun to proclaim that these results having been accepted, a 
“changed view of the Bible ” follows which implies a recon- 
structed doctrine of inspiration, and, indeed, also a whole new 
theology. That this changed view of the Bible involves losses 
is frankly admitted. The nature of these losses is stated by Dr. 
Sanday in a very interesting little book * with an evident effort 
to avoid as far as possible “ making sad the heart of the right- 
eous whom the Lord hath not made sad,” as consisting chiefly 
in making “the intellectual side of the connection between 
Christian belief and Christian practice a matter of greater dif- 
ficulty than it has hitherto seemed to be,” in rendering it “ less 


4 “Who Wrote the Bible? ” A Book for the People. By Washington Glad- 
den. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1891. See pp. 61 (cf. pp. 57, 92 seq.), 21, 
25, 154 (cf. pp. 105, 166, 37, etc.). 

5 “The Change of Attitude Towards the Bible.” A lecture, etc. By Joseph 
Henry Thayer, Professor in Harvard University. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin 
& Co., 1891. See pp. 9, 10, 22, 52, 65. 

6 “The Oracles of God ” (Longmans, 1891), pp. 5, 45, 76. 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 171 


easy to find proof texts for this or that,” and in making the use 
of the Bible so much less simple and less definite in its details 
that “less educated Christians will perhaps pay more defer- 
ence to the opinion of the more educated, and to the advancing 
consciousness of the Church at large.” If this means all that it 
seems to mean, its proclamation of an indefinite Gospel eked 
out by an appeal to the Church and a scholastic hierarchy, in- 
volves a much greater loss than Dr. Sanday appears to think — 
a loss not merely of the Protestant doctrine of the perspicuity 
of the Scriptures, but with it of all that that doctrine is meant 
to express and safeguard — the loss of the Bible itself to the 
plain Christian man for all practical uses, and the delivery of 
his conscience over to the tender mercies of his human instruc- 
tors, whether ecclesiastical or scholastic. Dr. Briggs 1s more 
blunt and more explicit in his description of the changes which 
he thinks have been wrought. “I will tell you what criticism 
has destroyed,” he says in an article published a couple of 
years ago. “It has destroyed many false theories about the 
Bible; it has destroyed the doctrine of verbal inspiration; it 
has destroyed the theory of inerrancy; it has destroyed the 
false doctrine that makes the inspiration depend upon its at- 
tachment to a holy man.”* And he goes on to remark further 
“that Biblical criticism is at the bottom ” of the “ reconstruc- 
tion that is going on throughout the Church ” — “ the demand. 
for revision of creeds and change in methods of worship and 
Christian work.” It is clear enough, then, that a problem has 
been raised with reference to inspiration by this type of criti- 
cism. But this is not equivalent to saying that the established 
doctrine of inspiration has been put in jeopardy. For there is 
criticism and criticism. And though it may not be unnatural for 
these scholars themselves to confound the claims of criticism 
with the validity of their own critical methods and the sound- 
ness of their own critical conclusions, the Christian world can 
scarcely be expected to acquiesce in the identification. It has 
all along been pointing out that they were traveling on the 


7 The article appeared in The Christian Umon, but we quote it from Public 
Opinion, vol. x. No. 24 (March 25, 1891), p. 576. 


172 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


wrong road; and now when their conclusions clash with well- 
established facts, we simply note that the wrong road has not 
unnaturally led them to the wrong goal. In a word, it is not the 
established doctrine of inspiration that is brought into distress 
by the conflict, but the school of Old Testament criticism 
which is at present fashionable. It is now admitted that the 
inevitable issue of this type of criticism comes into collision 
with the established fact of the plenary inspiration of the Bible 
and the well-grounded Reformed doctrine of Holy Scripture 
based on this fact.* The cry is therefore, and somewhat impa- 
tiently, raised that this fact and this doctrine must “ get out of 
the way,” and permit criticism to rush on to its bitter goal. But 
facts are somewhat stubborn things, and are sometimes found 
to prove rather the test of theories which seek to make them 
their sport. 

Nevertheless, though the strain of the present problem 
should thus be thrown upon the shoulders to which it belongs, 
it is important to keep ourselves reminded that the doctrine of 
inspiration which has become established in the Church, is 
open to all legitimate criticism, and is to continue to be held 
only as, and so far as, it is ever anew critically tested and ap- 
proved. And in view of the large bodies of real knowledge con- 
cerning the Bible which the labors of a generation of diligent 
critical study have accumulated, and of the difficulty which is 
always experienced in the assimilation of new knowledge and 


8 This remark, of course, does not imply that there are none who assert 
that the results of this type of criticism leave “ inspiration ”’ untouched. Dr. 
Driver does not stand alone when he says, in the Preface to his “ Introduction 
to the Literature of the Old Testament ”: “ Criticism in the hands of Christian 
scholars does not banish or destroy the inspiration of the Old Testament; it 
presupposes it” (p. xix). But Prof. Driver would be the last to maintain that 
the “inspiration ” which criticism leaves to the Old Testament is what the 
Church has understood by the plenary inspiration of the Bible. Accordingly, 
Prof. Robertson speaks directly to the point when he remarks in the Preface to 
his “ Early Religion of Israel ” (p. xi), that “ such scholars would do an invalu- 
able service to the Church, at the present time, if they would explain what they 
mean by inspiration in this connection.” The efforts to do this, on our side of 
the water, are not reassuring. On the relation of the new views to inspiration 
see the lucid statement by Dr. E. C. Bissell in The Hartford Seminary Record, 
ii. 1. 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 173 


its correlation with previously ascertained truth, it is becoming 
to take this occasion to remind ourselves of the foundations on 
which this doctrine rests, with a view to inquiring whether it is 
really endangered by any assured results of recent Biblical 
study. For such an investigation we must start, of course, from 
a clear conception of what the Church doctrine of inspiration 
is, and of the basis on which it is held to be the truth of God. 
Only thus can we be in a position to judge how it can be af- 
fected on critical grounds, and whether modern Biblical criti- 
cism has reached any assured results which must or may 
“destroy ”’ it. 

The Church, then, has held from the beginning that the 
Bible is the Word of God in such a sense that its words, though 
written by men and bearing indelibly impressed upon them 
the marks of their human origin, were written, nevertheless, 
under such an influence of the Holy Ghost as to be also the 
words of God, the adequate expression of His mind and will. 
It has always recognized that this conception of co-authorship 
implies that the Spirit’s superintendence extends to the choice 
of the words by the human authors (verbal inspiration °), and 
preserves its product from everything inconsistent with a di- 
vine authorship — thus securing, among other things, that 
entire truthfulness which is everywhere presupposed in. and 
asserted for Scripture by the Biblical writers (inerrancy). 
Whatever minor variations may now and again have entered 
into the mode of statement, this has always been the core of 
the Church doctrine of inspiration. And along with many other 
modes of commending and defending it, the primary ground 
- on which it has been held by the Church as the true doctrine is 
that it is the doctrine of the Biblical writers themselves, and 
has therefore the whole mass of evidence for it which goes to 
show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as doctrinal 
guides. It is the testimony of the Bible itself to its own origin 

9 It ought to be unnecessary to protest again against the habit of represent- 
ing the advocates of “ verbal inspiration ” as teaching that the mode of inspira- 
tion was by dictation. The matter is fully explained in the paper: “ Inspiration.” 


By Profs. A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of 
Publication, 1881, pp. 19 seq. 


174 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


and character as the Oracles of the Most High, that has led the 
Church to her acceptance of it as such, and to her dependence 
on it not only for her doctrine of Scripture, but for the whole 
body of her doctrinal teaching, which is looked upon by her as 
divine because drawn from this divinely given fountain of 
truth. 

Now if this doctrine is to be assailed on critical grounds, it 
is very clear that, first of all, criticism must be required to pro- 
ceed against the evidence on which it is based. This evidence, 
it is obvious, is twofold. First, there is the exegetical evidence 
that the doctrine held and taught by the Church is the doctrine 
held and taught by the Biblical writers themselves. And sec- 
ondly, there is the whole mass of evidence — internal and ex- 
ternal, objective and subjective, historical and philosophical, 
human and divine — which goes to show that the Biblical 
writers are trustworthy as doctrinal guides. If they are trust- 
worthy teachers of doctrine and if they held and taught this 
doctrine, then this doctrine is true, and is to be accepted and 
acted upon as true by us all. In that case, any objections 
brought against the doctrine from other spheres of inquiry are 
inoperative; it being a settled logical principle that so long as 
the proper evidence by which a proposition is established re- 
mains unrefuted, all so-called objections brought against it 
pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the cate- 
gory of difficulties to be adjusted to it. If criticism is to assail 
this doctrine, therefore, it must proceed against and fairly over- 
come one or the other element of its proper proof. It must 
either show that this doctrine is not the doctrine of the Biblical 
writers, or else it must show that the Biblical writers are not 
trustworthy as doctrinal guides. If a fair criticism evinces that 
this is not the doctrine of the Biblical writers, then of course it 
has “destroyed” the doctrine which is confessedly based on 
that supposition. Failing in this, however, it can “ destroy ” the 
doctrine, strictly speaking, only by undermining its foundation 
in our confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture as a wit- 
ness to doctrine. The possibility of this latter alternative must, 
no doubt, be firmly faced in our investigation of the phenom- 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 175 


ena of the Bible; but the weight of the evidence, be it small or 
great, for the general trustworthiness of the Bible as a source 
of doctrine, throws itself, in the form of a presumption, against 
the reality of any phenomena alleged to be discovered which 
make against its testimony. No doubt this presumption may 
be overcome by clear demonstration. But clear demonstration 
is requisite. For, certainly, if it is critically established that 
what is sometimes called, not without a touch of scorn, “ the 
traditional doctrine,” is just the Bible’s own doctrine of inspi- 
ration, the real conflict is no longer with “ the traditional the- 
ory of inspiration,” but with the credibility of the Bible. The - 
really decisive question among Christian scholars (among 
whom alone, it would seem, could a question of inspiration be 
profitably discussed), is thus seen to be, ‘‘ What does an exact 
and scientific exegesis determine to be the Biblical doctrine of 
inspiration? ” 


THe BrsuicAL DocTRINE OF INSPIRATION CLEAR 


The reply to this question is, however, scarcely open to 
doubt. The stricter and the more scientific the examination is 
made, the more certain does it become that the authors of the 
New Testament held a doctrine of inspiration quite as high as 
the Church doctrine. This may be said, indeed, to be generally 
admitted by untrammeled critics, whether of positive or of 
negative tendencies. Thus, for instance — to confine our ex- 
amples to a few of those who are not able personally to accept 
the doctrine of the New Testament writers — Archdeacon 
Farrar is able to admit that Paul “shared, doubtless, in the 
views of the later Jewish schools — the Tanaim and Amoraim 
—on the nature of inspiration. These views . . . made the 
words of Scripture coextensive and identical with the words of 
God.” *° So also Otto Pfleiderer allows that Paul “ fully shared 
the assumption of his opponents, the irrefragable authority of 
the letter as the immediately revealed Word of God.” * Simi- 
larly, Tholuck recognizes that the application of the Old Tes- 


10 “ Life of Paul,’ 1. 49. 11 “ Paulinism,” 1. 88. 


176 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


tament made by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
‘rests on the strictest view of inspiration, since passages where 
God is not the speaker are cited as words of God or of the Holy 
Ghost. (1:6,°7)°8,) 1ve' 4.5 Avalte 2 tee 7 a oe 
worked out also with convincing clearness by the writer of an 
odd and sufficiently free Scotch book published a few years 
ago,'® who formulates his conclusion in the words: “ There is 
no doubt that the author of Hebrews, in common with the 
other New Testament writers, regards the whole Old Testa- 
ment as having been dictated by the Holy Ghost, or, as we 
should say, plenarily, and, as it were, mechanically inspired.” 
And more recently still Prof. Stapfer, of Paris,"* though him- 
self denying the reality not only of an infallibility for the 
Bible, but also of any inspiration for it at all, declaring that 
“the doctrine of an Inspiration distinct from Revelation and 
legitimating it, is an error’ — yet cannot deny that Paul held 
a different doctrine — a doctrine which made the Old Testa- 
ment to him the divine Word and the term, “It is written,” 
equivalent to “ God says.” * 

A detailed statement of the evidence is scarcely needed to 
support a position allowed by such general consent. But it will 
not be improper to adjoin a brief outline of the grounds on 
which the general consent rests. In the circumstances, how- 
ever, we may venture to dispense with an argument drawn up 
from our own point of view,’® and content ourselves with an 
extract from the brief statement of the grounds of his decision 


12 “Old Testament in the New,” Bibliotheca Sacra, xi. 612. 

43 “ Principles of Christianity,’ by James Stuart (1888), p. 346. 

14 “Séance de Rentrée des Cours de la Faculté de Théologie Protestante 
de Paris, le Mardi 3 Novembre,” 1891. Legon d’Ouverture de M. le Prof. Edm. 
Stapfer. Paris: Fischbacher, 1891. Pp. 26, 42. 

15 Compare also Kuenen, “ Prophets,” p. 449; Reuss, “ History of Christian 
Theology in the Apostolic Age,” i. p. 352 seq.; Riehm, “Der Lehrbegr. des 
Hebrierbriefes,” i. pp. 173, 177, ete. 

16 Those who wish to see a very conclusive and thorough statement of 
Paul’s doctrine of inspiration should consult Dr. Purves’s paper on “St. Paul 
and Inspiration,” published in The Presbyterian and Reformed Rev., January, 
1893. For our Lord’s doctrine, see Dr. Caven’s paper on “ Our Lord’s Testimony 
to the Old Testament,” in the number of the Review for July, 1892. 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 177 


given by another of those critical scholars who do not believe 
the doctrine of plenary inspiration, but yet find themselves 
constrained to allow that it is the doctrine of the New Testa- 
ment writers. Richard Rothe*’ seeks, wrongly, to separate 
Christ’s doctrine of the Old Testament from that of the apos- 
tles; our Lord obviously spoke of the Scriptures of His people 
out of the same fundamental conception of their nature and 
divinity as His apostles. But he more satisfactorily outlines the 
doctrine of the apostles as follows: 


“We find in the New Testament authors the same theoretical 
view of the Old Testament and the same practice as to its use, as 
among the Jews of the time in general, although at the same time in 
the handling of the same conceptions and principles on both sides, 
the whole difference between the new Christian spirit and that of 
contemporary Judaism appears in sharp distinctness. Our authors 
look upon the words of the Old Testament as zmmediate words of 
God, and adduce them expressly as such, even those of them which 
are not at all related as direct sayings of God. They see nothing at 
all in the sacred volume which is simply the word of its human au- 
thor and not at the same time the very Word of God Himself. In all 
that stands ‘ written ’ God Himself speaks to them, and so entirely 
are they habituated to think only of this that they receive the sacred 
Word written itself, as such, as God’s Word, and hear God speaking 
in it wmmediately, without any thought of the human persons who 
appear in it as speaking and acting. The historical conception of their 
Bible is altogether foreign to them. Therefore they cite the abstract 
h ypadh or al ypadat or ypadai ayiot (Rom. i. 2), or again 7d tepa 
ypaupara (2 Tim. ii. 15), without naming any special author, as 
self-evidently God’s Word, e.g., John vii. 38, x. 35, xix. 36, 37, xx. 9; 
Acts 1. 16; James il. 8; Rom. ix. 17; Gal. ili. 8, 22, iv. 30; 1 Pet. 11. 6; 
2 Pet. 1. 20, etc.; and introduce Old Testament citations with the 
formulas, now that God (Matt. i. 22, 11. 15; Acts iv. 25, xii. 34; Rom. 
1, 2), now that the Holy Spirit (Acts i. 16, xxviii. 25; Heb. ii. 7, ix. 
8, x. 15; cf. also Acts iv. 25; 1 Pet. 1. 11; 2 Pet. i. 20) so speaks or has 
spoken. The Epistle to the Hebrews unhesitatingly adduces with a 
6 Beds Neyer and the like, even passages in which God jis spoken of ex- 
pressly in the third person (i. 6, 7, 8 seq., iv. 4, 7, vu. 21, x. 30), and 
even (i. 10) cites a passage in which in the Old Testament text God 

17 “ Zur Dogmatik,” p. 177 seq. 


178 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Himself (according to the view of the author it is, however, the Son 
of God) is addressed, as a word spoken by God. In 2 Tim. iii. 16 the 
tepd ypdupata (verse 15) are expressly called Sedrvevora, however 
the sentence may be construed or expounded; and however little a 
special theory of the inspiration of the Bible can be drawn from an 
expression of such breadth of meaning, nevertheless this datum 
avails to prove that the author shared in general the view of his 
Jewish contemporaries as to the peculiar character of the Old Testa- 
ment books, and it is of especial importance inasmuch as it attrib- 
utes the inspiration, without the least ambiguity, directly to the 
writings themselves, and not merely to their authors, the prophets. 
No doubt, in the teaching of the apostles the conception of prophetic 
inspiration to which it causally attributes the Old Testament, has 
not yet the sharp exactness of our ecclesiastical dogmatic concep- 
tion; but it stands, nevertheless, in a very express analogy with it. 
.. . Moreover, it must be allowed that the apostolical writers, al- 
though they nowhere say it expressly, refer the prophetic inspiration 
also to the actus scribendi of the Biblical authors. The whole style 
and method of their treatment of the Old Testament text manifestly 
presupposes in them this view of this matter, which was at the time 
the usual one in the Jewish schools. With Paul particularly this is 
wholly incontrovertibly the case. For only on that view could he, in 
such passages as Rom. iv. 23, 24, xv. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 10, x. 11 — in which 
he distinguishes between the occurrence of the Old Testament facts 
and the recording of them — maintain of the latter that it was done 
with express teleological reference to the needs of the New Testa- 
ment believers, at least so far as the selection of the matter to be de- 
scribed is concerned; and only on that view could he argue on the 
details of the letter of the Old Testament Scriptures, as he does in 
Gal. i. 15, i6. We can, moreover, trace the continuance of this view 
in the oldest post-apostolical Church. . . . So far as the Old Testa- 
ment is concerned, our ecclesiastical-dogmatic doctrine of inspira- 
tion can, therefore, in very fact, appeal to the authority, not indeed 
of the Redeemer Himself —for He stands in an entirely neutral 
attitude towards it — but no doubt of the apostles.” 


A keen controversialist like Rothe does not fail, of course — 
as the reader has no doubt observed — to accompany his ex- 
position of the apostolic doctrine with many turns of expression 
designed to lessen its authority in the eyes of the reader, and to 
prepare the way for his own refusal to be bound by it; but 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 179 


neither does he fail to make it clear that this doctrine, although 
it is unacceptable to him, is the apostles’ doctrine. The apos- 
tles’ doctrine, let it be observed that we say. For even so bald 
a statement as Rothe’s will suffice to uncover the fallacy of the 
assertion, which is so often made, that the doctrine of verbal 
inspiration is based on a few isolated statements of: Scripture 
to the neglect, if not to the outrage, of its phenomena — a form 
of remark into which even so sober a writer as Dr. W. G. Blaikie 
has lately permitted himself to fall.** Nothing, obviously, could 
be more opposite to the fact. The doctrine of verbal inspiration 
is based on the broad foundation of the carefully ascertained 
doctrine of the Scripture writers on the subject. It is a product 
of Biblical Theology. And if men will really ask, not, ‘‘ What do 
the creeds teach? What do the theologians say? What is the 
authority of the Church? but, What does the Bible itself teach 
us?” and “ fencing off from the Scriptures all the speculations, 
all the dogmatic elaborations, all the doctrinal adaptations that 
have been made in the history of doctrine in the Church,” 
“limit themselves strictly to the theology of the Bible itself ”’ 
— according to the excellent programme outlined by Dr. 
Briggs *® —it is to the doctrine of verbal inspiration, as we 
have seen, that they must come. It is not Biblical criticism that 
has “ destroyed ” verbal inspiration, but Dr. Briggs’ scholastic 
theories that have drawn him away in this matter from the 
pure deliverances of Biblical Theology.°° 

Much more, of course, does such a statement as even 
Rothe’s uncover the even deeper error of the assertion latterly 
becoming much too common, that, the doctrine of verbal in- 
spiration, as a recent writer puts it,”* “is based wholly upon an 
a@ priori assumption of what inspiration must be, and not upon 

18 “ Letter to the Rev. Andrew A. Bonar, D.D.,” etc. Edinburgh, 1890. 

19 “The Edward Robinson Chair of Biblical Theology in the Union Theo- 
logical Seminary,’ New York (1891), pp. 5, 6. 

20 The substance of some of the preceding paragraphs was printed in The 
Homiletical Review for May, 1891, under the title of “ The Present Problem of 
Inspiration.” 

21 “ Hixegesis.” An Address delivered at the Opening of the Autumn Term 


of Union Theological Seminary, September 24, 1891. By Marvin R. Vincent, 
D.D., Professor of Sacred Literature. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1891. P. 40. 


180 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the Bible as it actually exists.” It is based wholly upon an ex- 
egetical fact. It is based on the exegetical fact that our Lord 
and His apostles held this doctrine of Scripture, and every- 
where deal with the Scriptures of the Old Testament in accord- 
ance with it, as the very Word of God, even in their narrative 
parts. This is a commonplace of exegetical science, the common 
possession of the critical schools of the left and of the right, a 
prominent and unmistakable deliverance of Biblical Theology. 
And on the establishment of it as such, the real issue is brought 
out plainly and stringently. If criticism has made such discov- 
eries as to necessitate the abandonment of the doctrine of 
plenary inspiration, it is not enough to say that we are com- 
-pelled to abandon only a “ particular theory of inspiration,” 
though that is true enough. We must go on to say that that 
“particular theory of inspiration ”’ is the theory of the apos- 
tles and of the Lord, and that in abandoning it we are aban- 
doning them as our doctrinal teachers and guides, as our 
“exegetes,”’ in the deep and rich sense of that word which Dr. 
Vincent vindicates for it.” This real issue is to be kept clearly 
before us, and faced courageously. Nothing is gained by closing 
our eyes to the seriousness of the problem which we are con- 
fronting. Stated plainly it is just this: Are the New Testament 
writers trustworthy guides in doctrine? Or are we at liberty to 
reject their authority, and frame contrary doctrines for our- 
selves? If the latter pathway be taken, certainly the doctrine 
of plenary inspiration is not the only doctrine that is “ de- 
stroyed,” and the labor of revising our creeds may as well be 
saved and the shorter process adopted of simply throwing them 
away. No wonder we are told that the same advance in knowl- 
edge which requires a changed view of the Bible necessitates 
also a whole new theology. If the New Testament writers are 
not trustworthy as teachers of doctrine and we have to go else- 
where for the source and norm of truth as to God and duty and 
immortality, it will not be strange if a very different system of 
doctrine from that delivered by the Scriptures and docilely re- 
ceived from them by the Church, results. 
22 Op. cit., p. 5 seq. 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 181 


And how, having uncovered the precise issue which is in- 
volved in the real problem of inspiration, let us look at it at 
various angles and thus emphasize in turn two or three of the 
more important results that spring from it. 


I 


MopDIFICATIONS OF THE BIBLICAL DoctTRINE UNDERMINE THE 
AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES 


First, we emphasize the fact that, this being the real state 
of the case, we cannot modify the doctrine of plenary inspira- 
tion in any of its essential elements without undermining our 
confidence in the authority of the apostles as teachers of 
doctrine. 

Logically, this is an immediate corollary of the proposition .. 
already made good. Historically, it is attested by the driftage » 
of every school of thought which has sought to find a ground of. 
faith in any lower than the Church’s doctrine of a plenarily in- 
spired Bible. The authority which cannot assure of a hard fact 
is soon not trusted for a hard doctrine. Sooner or later, in > 
greater or less degree, the authority of the Bible in doctrine 
and life is replaced by or subordinated to that of reason, or of 
the feelings, or of the ‘‘ Christian consciousness ” — the “ con- 
scious experience by the individual of the Christian faith ”’ — 
or of that corporate Christian consciousness which so easily 
hardens into simple ecclesiastical domination. What we are to 
accept as the truth of God is a comparatively easy question, if 
we can open our Bibles with the confident belief that what we 
read there is commended to us by a fully credible “ Thus saith 
the Lord.” But in proportion as we allow this or that element 
in it not to be safeguarded to us by this divine guarantee, do we 
begin to doubt the trustworthiness of more and more of the 
message delivered, and to seek other grounds of confidence than 
the simple “ It is written ” which sufficed for the needs of our 
Lord and His apostles. We have seen Dr. Sanday pointing to 
“the advancing consciousness of the Church at large,” along 


182 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


with the consensus of scholars, as the ground of acceptance of 
doctrines as true, which will be more and more turned to when 
men can no longer approach the Bible so simply as heretofore. 
This is the natural direction in which to look, for men trained 
to lay that great stress on institutional Christianity which 
leads Mr. Gore to describe the present situation as one in which 
“it is becoming more and more difficult to believe in the Bible 
without believing in the Church.” ** Accordingly Dr. Sterrett 
also harmonizes his Hegelianism and Churchliness in finding 
the ground of Christian certitude in the “ communal Christian 
consciousness,” which is defined as the Church, as “ objective, 
authoritative reason for every Christian,” to which he must 
subordinate his individual reason.** Men of more individualis- 
tic training fall back rather on personal reason or the individual 
“Christian consciousness’; but all alike retire the Bible as a 
source of doctrine behind some other safeguard of truth. 

It may not be without interest or value to subject the vari- 
ous pathways which men tread in seeking to justify a lower 
view of Scripture than that held and taught by the New Tes- 
tament writers, to a somewhat close scrutiny, with a view to 
observing how necessarily they logically involve a gradual un- 
dermining of the trustworthiness of those writers as teachers 
of doctrine. From the purely formal point of view proper to our 
present purpose, four types of procedure may be recognized. 


CHRIST VERSUS THE APOSTLES 


1. There is first, that, of which Richard Rothe is an ex- 
ample, which proceeds by attempting to establish a distinction 
between the teaching of Christ and the teaching of His apos- 
tles, and refusing the latter in favor of the former. 

As we have already remarked, this distinction cannot be 
made good. Rothe’s attempt to establish it proceeds on the 
twofold ground, on the one hand, of an asserted absence from 
our Lord’s dealings with the Scriptures of those extreme facts 


23 “ Tux Mundi.” American Ed. New York: John W. Lovell Co. P. 283. 
24 “ Reason and Authority in Religion.” By J. MacBride Sterrett, D.D., 
Professor in Seabury Divinity School. New York: T. Whittaker, 1891. P. 176. 


4 





i I ie a i te 


a 
—_— 


—s 


ca." 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 183 


of usage of it as the Word of God, and of those extreme state- 
ments concerning its divine character, on the ground of which 
in the apostles’ dealing with it we must recognize their high 
doctrine of Scripture; and on the other hand, of an asserted 
presence in Christ’s remarks concerning Scripture of hints that 
He did not share the conception of Scripture belonging to con- 
temporary Judaism, which conception we know to have been 
the same high doctrine that was held by the apostles. He infers, 
therefore, that the apostles, in this matter, represent only the 
current Jewish thought in which they were bred, while Christ’s 
divine originality breaks away from this and commends to us 
a new and more liberal way. 

But in order to make out the first member of the twofold 
ground on which he bases this conclusion, Rothe has to proceed 
by explaining away, by means of artificial exegetical expedi- 
ents, a number of facts of usage and deliverances as to Scrip- 
ture, in which our Lord’s dealings with Scripture culminate, 
and which are altogether similar in character and force to those 
on the basis of which he infers the apostles’ high doctrine. 
These are such passages as the quotation in Matt. xix. 4, 5, of 
Adam’s words as God’s Word, which Lechler appeals to as de- 
Cisive just as Rothe appeals to similar passages in the epistles 
—hbut which Rothe sets aside in a footnote simply with the 
remark that it is not decisive here; the assertion in John x. 35, 
that the “Scripture cannot be broken,” which he sets aside as 
probably not a statement of Christ’s own opinion but an argu- 
mentum ad hominem, and as in any case not available here, 
since it does not explicitly assert that the authority it ascribes 
to Scripture is due “ to its origination by inspiration ” — but 
which, as Dr. Robert Watts has shown anew,” is conclusive for 


25 “ Faith and Inspiration.” The Carey Lectures for 1884. By Robert Watts, 
D.D, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1885. P. 139. ‘“‘ The sole question is: What, 
according to the language employed by Him, was His estimate of the Old Tes- 
tament Scripture? It will be observed that He does not single out the passage 
on which He bases His argument, and testify of it that it is unbreakable, mak- 
ing its infallibility depend on His authority. Stated formally, His argument is 
as follows: Major — The Scripture cannot be broken. Minor —‘I said ye are 
God’s,’ is written in your law, which is Scripture. Conclusion —‘I said ye are 


184 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


our Saviour’s view of the entire infallibility of the whole Old 
Testament; the assertion in Matt. v. 18 (and in Luke xvi. 17) 
that not “ one jot or one tittle (tara é& # uta xepaia) shall pass 
away from the law till all be fulfilled,” which he sets aside with 
the remark that it is not the law-codex, but the law itself, that 
is here spoken of, forgetful of the fact that it is the law itself 
as written that the Lord has in mind, in which form alone, 
moreover, do “ yodhs and horns” belong to it; the assertion in 
Matt. xxii. 48, that it was “in the Spirit” that David called 
the Messiah, “ Lord,” in the one hundredth and tenth Psalm, 
which he sets aside with the remark that this does prove that 
Jesus looked upon David as a prophet, but not necessarily that 
he considered the one hundred and tenth Psalm inspired, as in- 
deed he does not say ypader but cadet — forgetful again that it 
is to the written David alone that Christ makes His appeal and 
on the very language written in the Psalm that He founds His 
argument. 

No less, in order to make out the second member of the 
ground on which he bases his conclusion, does Rothe need 
to press passages which have as their whole intent and effect to 
rebuke the scribes for failure to understand and properly to 
use Scripture, into indications of rejection on Christ’s part of 
the authority of the Scriptures to which both He and the 
scribes appealed. Lest it should be thought incredible that such 
a conclusion should be drawn from such premises, we tran- 
scribe Rothe’s whole statement. 


“On the other hand, we conclude with great probability that the 
Redeemer did not share the conception of His Israelitish contempo- 
raries as to the inspiration of their Bible, as stated above, from the 
fact that He repeatedly expresses his dissatisfaction with the man- 
ner usual among them of looking upon and using the sacred books. 
He tells the scribes to their face that they do not understand the 


God’s’ cannot be broken. . . . He argues the infallibility of the clause on which 
He founds His argument from the infallibility of the record in which it occurs. 
According to His infallible estimate, it was sufficient proof of the infallibility 


of any sentence or phrase of a clause, to show that it constituted a portion of © 


what the Jews called ‘ the Scripture’ (7 ypa¢7).” 


rd 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 185 


Scriptures (Matt. xxii. 29; Mark xii. 24), and that it is delusion for 
them to think to possess eternal life in them, therefore in a book 
(John v. 39), even as He also (in the same place) seems to speak 
disapprovingly of their searching of the Scriptures, because it pro- 
ceeds from such a perverted point of view.” 2° 


Thus Jesus’ appeal to the Scriptures as testifying to Him, and 
His rebuke to the Jews for not following them while professing 
to honor them, are made to do duty as a proof that He did not 
ascribe plenary authority to them.”’ 

Furthermore, Rothe’s whole treatment of the matter omits 
altogether to make account of the great decisive consideration 
of the general tone and manner of Christ’s allusions and appeal 
to the Scriptures, which only culminate in such passages as he 
has attempted to explain away, and which not only are incon- 
sistent with any other than the same high view of their author- 
ity, trustworthiness and inspiration, as that which Rothe infers 
from similar phenomena to have been the conception of the 
apostles, but also are necessarily founded on it as its natural 
expression. The distinction attempted to be drawn between 
Christ’s doctrine of Holy Scripture and that of His apostles is 
certainly inconsistent with the facts. 

But we are more concerned at present to point out that the 
attempt to draw this distinction must result in undermining 
utterly all confidence in the New Testament writers as teachers 
of doctrine. So far as the apostles are concerned, indeed, it 
would be more correct to say that it is the outgrowth and mani- 
festation of an already present distrust of them as teachers of 
doctrine. Its very principle is appeal from apostolic teaching to 
that of Christ, on the ground that the former is not authorita- 
tive. How far this rejection of apostolic authority goes is evi- 
denced by the mode of treatment vouchsafed to it. Immedi- 
ately on drawing out the apostles’ doctrine of inspiration, 
Rothe asks, “ But now what dogmatic value has this fact? ”’ 


26 “ Zur Dogmatik,” p. 177. 

27 Compare Meyer, in loc. (EH. T., i. p. 262, note): “ Even Rothe .. . takes 
doxetre in the sense of a delusion, namely, that they possessed eternal life in a 
‘book. Such explanations are opposed to the high veneration manifested by 
Jesus towards the Holy Scriptures, especially apparent in John... .” 


186 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


And on the ground that “ by their fruits ye shall know them,” 
he proceeds to declare that the apostles’ doctrine of Scripture 
led them into such a general use and mode of interpretation of 
Scripture as Rothe deems wholly unendurable.** It is not, then, 
merely the teaching of the apostles as to what the Scriptures 
are, but their teaching as to what those Scriptures teach, in 
which Rothe finds them untrustworthy. It would be impossible 
but that the canker should eat still more deeply. 

Nor is it possible to prevent it from spreading to the under- 
mining of the trustworthiness of even the Lord’s teaching it- 
self, for the magnifying of which the distinction purports to be 
drawn. The artificial manner in which the testimony of the 
Lord to the authority of the Scriptures is explained away in the 
attempt to establish the distinction, might be pleaded indeed 
as an indication that trust in it was not very deeply rooted. 
And there are other indications that had the Lord been ex- 
plained to be of the apostles’ mind as to Scripture, a way would 
have been found to free us from the duty of following His 
teaching.*® For even His exegesis is declared not to be authori- 
tative, seeing that “ exegesis is essentially a scientific function, 
and conditioned on the existence of scientific means, which in 
relation to the Old Testament were completely at the com- 
mand of Jesus as little as of His contemporaries”’; and the 
principle of partial limitation at least to the outlook of His day 
which is involved in such a statement is fully accepted by 
Rothe.*® All this may, however, be thought more or less per- 


28 Op. cit., pp. 181, 182. 

29 Op. cit., pp. 174, 175. 

30 Even on an extreme Kenotic view, it is, however, not so certain that 
error should be attributed to the God-man. Prof. Gretillat, of Neuchatel, a 
Kenotist of the type of Gess and his own colleague Godet, is able to teach 
that “by reason of the relation which unites the intelligence with the will,” 
our Lord must needs be free not only from sin, but also from all error (Exposé 
de Theol. Syst., iv. 288). Tholuck occupied a position similar to Rothe’s; yet 
he reminds us that: ‘‘ Proofs might be brought to show that, even in questions 
pertaining to learned exegesis ”” — which are such as our Lord needed to learn 
as a man—‘“‘such as those concerning the historical connection of a passage, 
the author and age of a book, an original spiritual discernment without the 
culture of the schools may often divine the truth” (‘“ Citations of the Old 
Testament in the New,” tr. in Bibliotheca Sacra, xi. p. 615). 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 187 


sonal to Rothe’s own mental attitude, whereas the ultimate 
undermining of our Lord’s authority as teacher of doctrine, as 
well as that of His apostles, is logically essential to the position 
assumed. 


This may be made plain at once by the very obvious remark — 


that we have no Christ except the one whom the apostles have 
given to us. Jesus Himself left no treatises on doctrine. He left 
no written dialogues. We are dependent on the apostles for our 
whole knowledge of Him, and of what He taught. The por- 
traiture of Jesus which has glorified the world’s literature as 
well as blessed all ages and races with the revelation of a God- 
man come down from heaven to save the world, is limned by 
his followers’ pencils alone. The record of that teaching which 
fell from His lips as living water, which if a man drink of he 
shall never thirst again, is a record by his followers’ pens alone. 
They have painted for us, of course, the Jesus that they knew, . 
and as they knew Him. They have recorded for us the teach- 
ings that they heard, and as they heard them. Whatever un- 
trustworthiness attaches to them as deliverers of doctrine, 
must in some measure shake also our confidence in their report 
of what their Master was and taught. 

But the logic cuts even deeper. For not only have we no 
Christ but Him whom we receive at the apostles’ hands, but 
this Christ is committed to the trustworthiness of the apostles 
as teachers. His credit is involved in their credit. He represents 
His words on earth as but the foundation of one great temple 
of doctrine, the edifice of which was to be built up by Him 
through their mouths, as they spoke moved by His Spirit; and 
thus He makes Himself an accomplice before the fact in all 
they taught. In proportion as they are discredited as doctrinal 
guides, in that proportion He is discredited with them. By the 
promise of the Spirit, He has forever bound His trustworthi- 
ness with indissoluble bands to the trustworthiness of His ac- 
credited agents in founding His Church, and especially by that 
great promise recorded for us in John xvi. 12-15: “I have yet 
many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you 


188 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatso- 
ever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you 
things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of 
~ mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father 
hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine and 
shall show it unto you.” Says Dr. C. W. Hodge: ** 


‘Tt is impossible to conceive how the authority of the Master 
could be conveyed to the teaching of the disciples more emphati- 
cally than is here done by Christ. He identifies His teaching and the 
teaching of the Spirit as parts of one whole; His teaching is carrying 
out My teaching, it is calling to remembrance what I have told you; 

it is completing what I have begun. And to make the unity emphatic, 
He explains why He had reserved so much of His own teaching, and 
’ committed the work of revelation to the Spirit. He, in His incarna- 
tion and life, comprised all saving truth. He was the revealer of God 
and the truth and the life. But while some things He had taught 
while yet with them, He had many things to say which must be post- 
poned because they could not yet bear them. . . . If Christ has re- 
ferred us to the apostles as teachers of the truths which He would 
have us know, certainly this primary truth of the authority of the 
Scriptures themselves can be no exception. All questions as to the ex- 
tent of this inspiration, as to its exclusive authority, as to whether 
it extends to words as well as doctrines, as to whether it is infallible 
or inerrant, or not, are simply questions to be referred to the Word 
itself.” 


In such circumstances the attempt to discriminate against 
the teaching of the apostles in favor of that of Christ, is to con- 
tradict the express teaching of Christ Himself, and thus to un- 
dermine our confidence in it. We cannot both believe Him and 
not believe Him. The ery, “ Back to Christ! ” away from all 
the imaginations of men’s hearts and the cobweb theories 
which they have spun, must be ever the ery of every Christian 
heart. But the ery, “ Back to Christ! ” away from the teachings 
of His apostles, whose teachings He Himself represents as His 


81 Sermon on “ The Promise of the Spirit,” in the volume: “ Princeton 
Sermons.” By the Faculty of the Seminary. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 
1893. P. 33. The whole of this noble sermon should be read. 


as 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 189 


own, only delivered by His Spirit through their mouths, is an 
invitation to desert Christ Himself. It is an invitation to draw 
back from the Christ of the Bible to some Christ of our own 
fancy, from the only real to some imaginary Christ. It is to 
undermine the credit of the whole historical revelation in and 
through the Christ of God, and to cast us for the ascertainment 
and authentication of truth on the native powers of our own 
minds. 


ACCOMMODATION OR IGNORANCE? 


2. Another method is that of those who seek to preserve 
themselves from the necessity of accepting the doctrine of in- 


spiration held by the writers of the New Testament, by repre- 
senting it as merely a matter of accommodation to the preju- — 
dices of the Jews, naturally if not necessarily adopted bythe . 


first preachers of the Gospel in their efforts to commend to 
their contemporaries their new teaching as'to the way of life. 

This position is quite baldly stated by a recent Scotch 
writer, to whose book, written with a frank boldness, a force 
and a logical acumen which are far above the common, too 
little heed has been paid as an indication of the drift of the 
times.’ Says Mr. James Stuart: 


“The apostles had not merely to reveal the Gospel scheme of 
salvation to their own and all subsequent ages, but they had to pre- 
sent it in such a form, and support it by such arguments, as should 
commend it to their more immediate hearers and readers. Notwith- 
standing its essentially universal character, the Gospel, as it appears 
in the New Testament, is couched in a particular form, suited to the 
special circumstances of a particular age and nation. Before the 
Gospel could reach the hearts of those to whom it was first addressed, 
prejudices had to be overcome, prepossessions had to be counted on 
and dealt with. The apostles, in fact, had just to take the men of 
their time as they found them, adapting their teaching accordingly. 
Not only so, but there is evidence that the apostles were themselves, 
to a very great extent, men of their own time, sharing many of the 

82 “The Principles of Christianity.” Being an Essay towards a More Cor- 


rect Apprehension of Christian Doctrine, Mainly Soteriological. By James 
Stuart, M.A. London: Williams & Norgate, 1888. P. 67 seq. 


190 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


common opinions and even the common prejudices, so that, in argu- 
ing ex concessis, they were arguing upon grounds that would appear 
to themselves just and tenable. Now one of the things universally 
conceded in apostolic times was the inspiration and authority of the 
Old Testament; another was the legitimacy of certain modes of in- 
terpreting and applying the Old Testament. The later Jews, as is 
well known, cherished a superstitious reverence and attached an 
overwhelming importance to the letter of the Old Testament, which 
they regarded as the ‘ Word of God’ in the fullest and most absolute 
sense that can possibly be put upon such an expression. The doctors 
taught and the people believed that the sacred writings were not 
only inspired, but inspired to the utmost possible or conceivable ex- 
tent. In the composition of Scripture, the human author was nowhere, 
and the inspiring Spirit everywhere; not the thoughts alone, but the 
very words of Scripture were the Word of God, which He communi- 
cated by the mouth of the human author, who merely discharged the 
duty of spokesman and amanuensis, so that what the Scripture con- 
tains is the Word of God in as complete and full a sense as if it had 
been dictated by the lips of God to the human authors, and recorded 
with something approaching to perfect accuracy. . . . Such being 
the prevalent view of the inspiration and authority of the Old Testa- 
ment writings, what could be more natural than that the apostles 
should make use of these writings to enforce and commend their own 
ideas? And if the Old Testament were to be used for such a purpose 
at all, evidently it must be used according to the accepted methods; 
for to have followed any other — assuming the possibility of such a 
thing — would have defeated the object aimed at, which was to ac- 
commodate the Gospel to established prejudices.” 


Now, here too, the first remark which needs to be made is 
that the assertion of “ accommodation” on the part of the 
New Testament writers cannot be made good. To prove “ ac- 
commodation,” two things need to be shown: first, that the 
_ apostles did not share these views, and, secondly, that they 
' nevertheless accommodated their teaching to them. “ Accom- 
modation” properly so called cannot take place when the 
views in question are the proper views of the persons them- 
selves. But even in the above extract Mr. Stuart is led to allow 
that the apostles shared the current Jewish view of the Scrip- 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 191 


tures, and at a later point ** he demonstrates this in an argu- 
ment of singular lucidity, although in its course he exaggerates 
the character of their views in his effort to fix a stigma of 
mechanicalness on them. With what propriety, then, can he 
speak of “ accommodation ” in the case? The fact is that the 
theory of “accommodation ” is presented by Mr. Stuart only 
to enable him the more easily to refuse to be bound by the 
apostolic teaching in this matter, and as such it has served 
him as a stepping stone by which he has attained to an even 


more drastic principle, on which he practically acts: that when- | 


ever the apostles can be shown to agree with their contempo- 
raries, their teaching may be neglected. In such cases, he con- 
celves of the New Testament writers “ being inspired and 
guided by current opinion,” ** and reasons thus: *° 


“Now it is unquestionable that the New Testament writers in so 
regarding the Old Testament were not enunciating a new theory of 
inspiration or interpretation, they were simply adopting and follow- 
ing out the current theory. . . . In matters of this kind . . . the 
New Testament writers were completely dominated by the spirit of 
the age, so that their testimony on the question of Scripture inspira- 
tion possesses no independent value.” ‘“‘ If these popular notions were 
infallibly correct before they were taken up and embodied in the 
New Testament writings, they are infallibly correct still; if they 
were incorrect before they were taken up and embodied in the New 
Testament writings, they are incorrect still.” °° 


This is certainly most remarkable argumentation, and the 
principle asserted is probably one of the most singular to which 
thinking men ever committed themselves, viz., that a body of 
religious teachers, claiming authority for themselves as such, 
are trustworthy only when they teach novelties. It is the 
apotheosis of the old Athenian and new modern spirit, which 
has leisure and heart “ for nothing else but either to tell or 

83 P, 345 seq. 

34 P. 213. 

85 Pp, 348, 349. 

36 P, 70. The immediate reference of these last words is to matters of criti- 


cism and exegesis; but according to the contextual connection they would also 
be used of matters of inspiration. 


192 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


hear some new thing.” Nevertheless, it is a principle far from 
uncommon among those who are seeking justification for them- 
selves in refusing the leadership of the New Testament writers 
in the matter of the authority and inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures. And, of late, it is, of course, taking upon itself in certain 
quarters a new form, the form imposed by the new view of the 
origin of Christian thought in Hellenic sources, which has 
been given such vogue by Dr. Harnack and rendered popular 
in English-speaking lands by the writings of the late Dr. Hatch. 
For example, we find it expressed in this form in the recent 
valuable studies on the First Epistle of Clement of Rome, by 
Lic. Wrede.*’? Clement’s views of the Old Testament Scriptures 
are recognized as of the highest order; he looks upon them as 
a marvelous and infallible book whose very letters are sacred, 
as a veritable oracle, the most precious possession of the 
Church. These high views were shared by the whole Church of 
his day, and, indeed, of the previous age: “The view which 
Clement has of the Old Testament, and the use which he makes 
of it, show in themselves no essential peculiarities in compari- 
son with the most nearly related Christian writings, especially 
the Pauline epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epis- 
tle of Barnabas.” And yet, according to Wrede, this view rests 
on “the Hellenistic conception of inspiration, according to 
which the individual writers were passive instruments of 
God.” ** Whether, however, the contemporary influence is 
thought to be Jewish or Greek, it is obvious that the appeal to 
it in such matters has, as its only intention, to free us from the 
duty of following the apostles and can have as its only effect to 
undermine their authority. We may no doubt suppose at the 
beginning that we seek only to separate the kernel from the 
husk; but a principle which makes husk of all that can be 
shown to have anything in common with what was believed 
by any body of contemporaries, Hebrew or Greek, is so very 


87 “ Untersuchungen zum ersten Klemensbriefe.” Von Lic. Theol. W. 
Wrede, Privatdocent der Theologie in Gottingen. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & 
Ruprecht’s Verlag, 1891. Pp. 60, 75 seq. 

88 Compare the review of Wrede by Prof. H. M. Scott, in The Presbyterian 
and Reformed Review, January, 1893, p. 163. 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 193 


drastic that it will leave nothing which we can surely trust. On 
this principle the Golden Rule itself is not authoritative, be- 
cause something like it may be found in Jewish tradition and 
among the heathen sages. It certainly will not serve to make 
novelty the test of authority. 

From the ethical point of view, however, this theory is pref- 
erable to that of “ accommodation,” and it is probable that 
part, at least, of the impulse which led Mr. Stuart to substitute 
it for the theory of “accommodation,” with which he began, ~ 
arose from a more or less clear perception of the moral implica- 
tions of the theory of ‘ accommodation.” Under the impulse 
of that theory he had been led to speak of the procedure of the: 
apostles in such language as this: ‘“ The sole principle that 
regulates all their appeals to the Old Testament, is that of ob- 
taining, at whatever cost, support for their own favorite 
ideas.” *° Is it any wonder that the reaction took place and an 
attempt was made to shift the burden from the veracity to the 
knowledge of the New Testament writers? *° In Mr. Stuart’s 
case we see very clearly, then, the effect of a doctrine of “ ac- 
commodation ” on the credit of the New Testament writers. 
His whole book is written in order to assign reason why he will 
not yield authority to these writers in their doctrine of a sacri- 
ficial atonement. This was due to their Jewish type of thought. 
But when the doctrine of accommodation is tried as a ground 
for the rejection of their authority, it is found to cut too deeply 
even for Mr. Stuart. He wishes to be rid of the authority of the 
New Testament writers, not to impeach their veracity; and so 
he discards it in favor of the less plausible, indeed, but also less 
deeply cutting canon, that the apostles are not to be followed 
when they agree with contemporary thought, because in these 
elements they are obviously speaking out of their own con- 
sciousness, as the products of their day, and not as proclaimers 
of the new revelation in Christ. Their inspiration, in a word, 
“was not plenary or universal — extending, that is, to all mat- 
ters whatever which they speak about — but partzal or special, 
being limited to securing the accurate communication of that 


39 P. 66. 40 P. 353. 


194 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


plan of salvation which they had so profoundly experienced, 
and which they were commissioned to proclaim.” ** In all else 
“the New Testament writers are simply on a level with their 
contemporaries.” It may not be uninstructive to note that un- 
der such a formula Mr. Stuart not only rejects the teachings of 
these writers as to the nature and extent of inspiration, but 
also their teaching as to the sacrificial nature of the very plan 
of salvation which they were specially commissioned to pro- 
claim. But what it is our business at present to point out 1s that 
the doctrine of accommodation is so obviously a blow at not 
only the trustworthiness, but the very veracity of the New 
Testament authors, that Mr. Stuart, even after asserting it, is 
led to permit it to fall into neglect. 

And must it not be so? It may be easy indeed to confuse it 
with that progressive method of teaching which every wise. 
teacher uses, and which our Lord also employed (John xvi. 
12 seq.) ; it may be easy to represent it as nothing more than 
that harmless wisdom which the apostle proclaimed as the 
principle of his life, as he went about the world becoming all 
things to all men. But how different it is from either! It is one 
thing to adapt the teaching of truth to the stage of receptivity 
of the learner; it is another thing to adopt the errors of the 
time as the very matter to be taught. It is one thing to refrain 
from unnecessarily arousing the prejudices of the learner, that © 
more ready entrance may be found for the truth; it is another 
thing to adopt those prejudices as our own, and to inculcate 
them as the very truths of God. It was one thing for Paul to 
become “ all things to all men ” that he might gain them to the 
truth; it was another for Peter to dissemble at Antioch, and so 
confirm men in their error. The accommodation attributed to 
the New Testament writers is a method by which they did and 
do not undeceive but deceive; not a method by which they 
teach the truth more winningly and to more; but a method by 
which they may be held to have taught along with the truth 
also error. The very object of attributing it to them is to en- 
able us to separate their teaching into two parts— the true 


41 VP, 258. 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 195 


and the false; and to justify us in refusing a part while accept- 
ing a part at their hands. At the best it must so undermine the 
trustworthiness of the apostles as deliverers of doctrine as to 
subject their whole teaching to our judgment for the separa- 
tion of the true from the false; at the worst, it must destroy 
their trustworthiness by destroying our confidence in their 
veracity. Mr. Stuart chose the better path; but he did so, as all 
who follow him must, by deserting the principle of aecommoda- . 
tion, which leads itself along the worse road. With it as a start- 
ing point we must impeach the New Testament writers as lack- 
ing either knowledge or veracity. | 


TEACHING VERSUS OPINION 


3. A third type of procedure, in defense of refusal to be 
bound by the doctrine of the New Testament writers as to in- 
spiration, proceeds by drawing a distinction between the belief 
and the teaching of these writers; and affirming that, although 
it is true that they did believe and hold a high doctrine of in- 
spiration, yet they do not explicitly teach it, and that we are 
bound, not by their opinions, but only by their explicit 
teaching. 

This appears to be the conception which underlies the treat- 
ment of the matter by Archdeacon (then Canon) Farrar, in 
his “ Life and Work of St. Paul.” Speaking of Paul’s attitude 
towards Scripture, Dr. Farrar says: * 


“He shared, doubtless, in the views of the later Jewish schools 
—the Tanaim and Amoraim — on the nature of inspiration. These 
views, which we find also in Philo, made the words of Scripture co- 
extensive and identical with the words of God, and in the clumsy 
and feeble hands of the more fanatical Talmudists often attached to 
the dead letter an importance which stifled or destroyed the living 
sense. But as this extreme and mechanical literalism — this claim to 
absolute infallibility even in accidental details and passing allu- 
sions — this superstitious adoration of the letters and vocables of 
Scripture, as though they were the articulate vocables and immedi- 


42 Op. cit., Vol. i. p. 49. 


196 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ate autograph of God —finds no encouragement in any part of 
Scripture, and very distinct discouragement in more than one of the 
utterances of Christ, so there is not a single passage in which any 
approach to it is dogmatically stated in the writings of St. Paul.” 


This passage lacks somewhat more in point of clearness than it 
does in point of rhetorical fire. But three things seem to be suf- 
ficiently plain: (1) That Dr. Farrar thinks that Paul shared 
the views of the Tanaim, the Amoraim and Philo as to the 
nature of inspiration. (2) That he admits that these views 
claimed for Scripture “ absolute infallibility even in accidental 
details and passing allusions.” (8) That nevertheless he does 
not feel bound to accept this doctrine at Paul’s hands, because, 
though Paul held it, he is thought not to have “ dogmatically 
stated ” it. ) 

Now, the distinction which is here drawn seems, in general, 
a reasonable one. No one is likely to assert infallibility for the 
apostles in aught else than in their official teaching. And what- 
ever they may be shown to have held apart from their official 
teaching, may readily be looked upon with only that respect 
which we certainly must accord to the opinions of men of such 
exceptional intellectual and spiritual insight. But it is more 
difficult to follow Dr. Farrar when it is asked whether this dis- 
tinction can be established in the present matter. It does not 
seem to be true that there are no didactic statements as to in- 
spiration in Paul’s letters, or in the rest of the New Testament, 
such as implicate and carry into the sphere of matters taught, 
the whole doctrine that underlies their treatment of Scripture. 
The assertion in the term “ theopneustic ” in such a passage as 
II Tim. i. 16, for example, cannot be voided by any construc- 
tion of the passage; and the doctrine taught in the assertion 
must be understood to be the doctrine which that term con- 
noted to Paul who uses it, not some other doctrine read into it 
by us. 

It is further necessary to inquire what sources we have in a 
case like that of Paul, to inform us as to what his opinions 
were, apart from and outside of his teachings. It might con- 
ceivably have happened that some of his contemporaries 








THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 197 


_ should have recorded for us some account of opinions held by 
him to which he has given no expression in his epistles; or 
some account of actions performed by him involving the mani- 
festation of judgment — somewhat similar, say, to Paul’s own 
account of Peter’s conduct in Antioch (Gal. 11. 11 seqg.). A pre- 
sumption may be held to lie also that he shared the ordinary 
opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope - 
of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of 
the earth, or its relation to the sun; and it is not inconceivable 
that the form of his language, when incidentally adverting to 
such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of such a 
presumption. But it is neither on the ground of such a pre- 
sumption, nor on the ground of such external testimony, that 
Dr. Farrar ascribes to him views as to inspiration similar to 
those of his Jewish contemporaries. It is distinctly on the. 
ground of what he finds on a study of the body of official teach- 
ing which Paul has left to us. Dr. Farrar discovers that these 
views as to the nature of Scripture so underlie, are so assumed 
in, are so implied by, are so interwoven with Paul’s official 
teaching that he is unwillingly driven to perceive that they 
were Paul’s opinions. With what color of reason then can they 
be separated from his teaching? 

There is raised here, moreover, a very important and far- 
reaching question, which few will be able to decide in Dr. 
Farrar’s sense. What is taught in the New Testament? And 
what is the mode of its teaching? If we are to fall in with Dr. 
Farrar and say that nothing is taught except what is “ dog- 
matically stated ” in formal didactic form, the occasional char- 
acter of the New Testament epistles would become a source of 
grave loss to us, instead of, as it otherwise is, a source of im- 
mense gain; the parabolic clothing of much of Christ’s teach- 
ing would become a device to withhold from us all instruction 
on the matters of which the parables treat; and all that is most 
fundamental in religious truth, which, as a rule, is rather as- 
sumed everywhere in Scripture as a basis for particular appli- 
cations than formally stated, would be removed out of the 
sphere of Biblical doctrine. Such a rule, in a word, would op- 


198 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


erate to turn the whole of Biblical teaching on its head, and to 
reduce it from a body of principles inculeated by means of ex- 
amples into a mere congeries of instances hung in the air. The 
whole advance in the attitude of Dogmatics towards the Scrip- 
tures which has been made by modern scholarship is, moreover, 
endangered by this position. It was the fault of the older dog- 
matists to depend too much on isolated proof-texts for the 
framing and defense of doctrine. Dr. Farrar would have us re- 
turn to this method. The alternative, commended justly to us 
by the whole body of modern scholarship, is, as Schleiermacher 
puts it, to seek “ a form of Scripture proof on a larger scale than 
can be got from single texts,” to build our systematic theology, 
in a word, on the basis, not of the occasional dogmatic state- 
ments of Scripture alone, taken separately and, as it were, in 
shreds, but on the basis of the theologies of the Scripture — to 
reproduce first the theological thought of each writer or group 
of writers and then to combine these several theologies (each 
according to its due historical place) into the one consistent 
system, consentaneous parts of which they are found to be.** 
In rejecting this method, Dr. Farrar discredits the whole sci- 
ence of Biblical Theology. From its standpoint it is incredible 
that one should attribute less importance and authoritative- 
ness to the fundamental conceptions that underlie, color and 
give form to all of Paul’s teaching than to the chance didactic 
statements he may have been led to make by this or that cir- 
cumstance at the call of which his letters happened to be writ- 
ten. This certainly would be tithing mint and anise and cum- 
min and omitting the weightier matters of the law. 

That this mode of presenting the matter must lead, no less 
than the others which have already come under review, to un- 
dermining the authority of the New Testament writers as de- 
liverers of doctrine, must already be obvious. It begins by dis- 
crediting them as leaders in doctrinal thought and substituting 
for this a sporadic authority in explicit dogmatic statements. 


43 The present writer has tried to state the true relations of Systematic and 
Biblical theology in a discussion of ‘“‘ The Idea of Systematic Theology Consid- 
ered as a Science” (Inaugural Address), pp. 22-28. A. D. F. Randolph & Co., 
1888. He ventures to refer the reader to it. 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 199 


In Dr. Farrar’s own hands it proceeds by quite undermining 
our confidence in the apostles as teachers, through an accusa- 
tion lodged against them, not only of holding wrong views in 
doctrine, but even of cherishing as fundamental conceptions 
theological fancies which are in their very essence superstitious 
and idolatrous, and in their inevitable outcome ruinous to faith 
and honor. For Dr. Farrar does not mince matters when he ex- 
presses his opinion of that doctrine of inspiration — in its na- 
ture and its proper effects — which Philo held and the Jewish 
Rabbis and in which Paul, according to his expressed convic- . 
tion, shared. “To say that every word and sentence and letter 
of Scripture is divine and supernatural, is a mechanical and 
useless shibboleth, nay, more, a human idol, and (construc- 
tively, at least) a dreadful blasphemy.” It is a superstitious — 
he tells us that he had almost said fetish-worshiping — dogma, 
and “not only unintelligible, but profoundly dangerous.” It 
“has in many ages filled the world with misery and ruin,” and 
“has done more than any other dogma to corrupt the whole of 
exegesis with dishonest casuistry, and to shake to its centre the 
religious faith of thousands, alike of the most ignorant and of 
the most cultivated, in many centuries, and most of all in our 
own.” *# Yet these are the views which Dr. Farrar is forced to 
allow that Paul shared! For Philo “ held the most rigid views 
of inspiration”; than him indeed “ Aqiba himself used no 
stronger language on the subject ” *° — Aqiba, “ the greatest of 
the Tanaites’’; “© and it was the views of the Tanaim, Amo- 
raim and Philo, which Dr. Farrar tells us the apostle shared. 
How after this Dr. Farrar continues to look upon even the 
“ dogmatic statements” of Paul as authoritative, it is hard to 
see. By construction he was a fetish worshiper and placed 
Scripture upon an idol’s pedestal. The doctrines which he held 
and which underlie his teaching were unintelligible, useless, 
idolatrous, blasphemous and profoundly dangerous, and actu- 


44 “Inspiration.” A Clerical Symposium. By the Rev. Archdeacon Farrar 
and others. London: James Nisbet and Co., 1888. 2d ed. Pp. 219, 241. 

45 “ History of Interpretation.” Bampton Lectures. By F. W. Farrar, D.D. 
London: Macmillan, 1880. P. 147. 

46° P2 71. 


200 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ally have shaken to its centre the religious faith of thousands. 
On such a tree what other than evil fruits could grow? 

No doubt something of this may be attributed to the ex- 
aggeration characteristic of Dr. Farrar’s language and thought. 
Obviously Paul’s view of inspiration was not altogether identi- 
cal with that of contemporary Judaism; it differed from it 
‘somewhat in the same way that his use of Scripture differed 
from that of the Rabbis of his day. But it is one with Philo’s 
and Aqiba’s on the point which with Dr. Farrar is decisive: 
alike with them he looked upon Scripture as “ absolutely infal- 
lible, even in accidental details and passing allusions,” as the 
very Word of God, His “ Oracles,” to use his own high phrase, 
and therefore Dr. Farrar treats the two views as essentially one. 
But the situation is only modified, not relieved, by the recog- 
nition of this fact. 


In any event the pathway on which we enter when we begin 


to distinguish between the didactic statements and the funda- 
mental conceptions of a body of incidental teaching, with a 
view to accepting the former and rejecting the latter, cannot 
but lead to a general undermining of the authority of the 
whole. Only if we could believe in a quite mechanical and magi- 
cal process of inspiration (from believing in which Dr. Farrar 
is no doubt very far) by which the subject’s “ dogmatical state- 
ments” were kept entirely separate from and unaffected by 
his fundamental conceptions, could such an attitude be logi- 
cally possible. In that case we should have to view these “ dog- 
matical statements ” as not Paul’s at all, standing, as they do 
ex hypothesi, wholly disconnected with his own fundamental 
thought, but as spoken through him by an overmastering spir- 
itual influence; as a phenomenon, in a word, similar to the 
oracles of heathen shrines, and without analogy in Scripture 
except perhaps in such cases as that of Balaam. In proportion 
as we draw back from so magical a conception of the mode of 
inspiration, in that proportion our refusal of authority to the 
fundamental conceptions of the New Testament writers must 
invade also their “ dogmatical statements.” We must logically, 
in a word, ascribe like authority to the whole body of their 


i 
; 
f 
if 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 201 


teaching, in its foundation and superstructure alike, or we 
must withhold it in equal measure from all; or, if we withhold 
it from one and not the other, the discrimination would most 
naturally be made against the superstructure rather than 
against the foundation. 


Facts versus DoctRiINE 


4, Finally, an effort may be made to justify our holding a 
lower doctrine of inspiration than that held by the writers of 
the New Testament, by appealing to the so-called phenomena 
of the Scriptures and opposing these to the doctrine of the 
Scriptures, with the expectation, apparently, of justifying a 
modification of the doctrine taught by the Scriptures by the 
facts embedded in the Scriptures, 

The essential principle of this method of procedure is shared 
by very many who could scarcely be said to belong to the class 
who are here more specifically in mind, inasmuch as they do 
not begin by explicitly recognizing the doctrine of inspiration 
held by the New Testament writers to be that high doctrine 
which the Church and the best scientific exegesis agree in un- 
derstanding them to teach.*? Every attempt to determine or 


47 On the contrary these writers usually minimize the Biblical definition of 
inspiration. Thus Dr. Marvin R. Vincent, who is immediately to be quoted 
(op. c. p. 15), tells us “ Scripture does not define the nature and extent of its 
own inspiration. The oft-quoted passage of II Tim. ii. 16 really gives us no 
light on that point. ... The passage does indeed point out certain effects 
which attend the use of inspired writings. . . . But after all, we are no nearer 
than ever to an answer to the question, What zs inspiration? . .. So that we 
must fall back on the facts, on the phenomena of the Bible as we have it.” But 
the deck is not cleared by such remarks; after all, Paul does assert something 
by calling the Scriptures Theopneustic, and what the thing is that he asserts in 
the use of this predicate, is not discoverable from an examination into what 
the Scriptures are, but only by an examination into what Paul means; but what 
Paul understands by theopneustic, Dr. Vincent makes no effort to investigate. 
This whole procedure is typical. Thus, for example, the Rev. J. Paterson 
Smyth, in his recent book, “ How God Inspired the Bible” (p. 64), proceeds 
in an exactly similar manner. “ Our theory of inspiration must be learned from 
the facts presented in the Bible, and in order to be correct it must be consistent 
with all these facts. . . . I want to find out what I can about inspiration. God 
has nowhere revealed to me exactly what it is. He has told me it is a divine 


202 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


. modify the Biblical doctrine of inspiration by an appeal -to the 
actual characteristics of the Bible must indeed proceed on an 
identical principle. It finds, perhaps, as plausible a form of as- 
sértion possible to it in the declaration of Dr. Marvin R. Vin- 
cent ** that “our only safe principle is that inspiration is con- 
sistent with the phenomena of Scripture ’’ — to which one of 
skeptical turn might respond that whether the inspiration 
claimed by Scripture is consistent with the phenomena of 
Scripture after all requires some proof, while one of a more 
believing frame might respond that it is a safer principle that 
the phenomena of Scripture are consistent with its inspiration. 
Its crudest expression may be seen in such a book as Mr. Hor- 
ton’s ‘ Inspiration and the Bible,” which we have already had 


influence, an in-breathing of the Holy Ghost on the spirit of the ancient writers. 
But I cannot tell how much that means or what effects I should expect from it. 
I have, therefore, no way of finding out except by examining the phenomena 
presented by the Bible itself.” This method amounts simply to discarding the 
guidance of the doctrine of Scripture in favor of our own doctrine founded on 
our examination of the nature of Scripture. Mr. Smyth cannot close his eyes to 
certain outstanding facts on the surface of Scripture, indicatory of the doctrine 
as to Scripture held by the Biblical writers (pp. 36 and 106), though he makes 
no effort to collect and estimate all such phenomena. And when he realizes that 
some may be affected even by his meagre statement of them so far as to say 
that “the strong expressions just here quoted from some of the Bible writers, 
and even from our Lord Himself, convince me that the theory of verbal in- 
spiration 1s most probably true,” he has only such an answer as the following: 
“ Well, reader, you will find a good many thoughtful people disagreeing with 
you. Why? Because, while fully receiving these arguments as a proof of God’s 
inspiration of the Bible, they have looked a little further than the surface to 
judge how much God’s inspiration implies, and they cannot believe from their 
examination of Scripture that it implies what is known as verbal inspiration ” 
(p. 109). Mr. Smyth means by “ verbal inspiration ” the theory of mechanical 
dictation. But putting that aside as a man of straw, what it is difficult for us to 
understand is how “ thoughtful people ” can frame a theory of inspiration after 
only such shallow investigation of the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration, and 
how “thoughtful people” can assign their inability to believe a doctrine, an 
inability based on their own conception of what Scripture is, as any proof that 
that doctrine is not taught by the “strong expressions” of the Bible writers 
and the Lord Himself. Is it any more rationalistic to correct the Scriptural doc- 
trine of the origin of the universe from our investigations of the nature of 
things, than it is to correct the Scriptural doctrine of inspiration from our in- 
vestigations of the nature of Scripture? 
48 Mag. of Christian Lit., April, 1892. 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 203 


occasion to mention. Mr. Horton chooses to retain the term, 
“inspiration,’ as representing ‘‘ the common sense of Chris- 


tians of all ages and in all places” as to the nature of their. 


Scriptures,*® but asserts that this term is to be understood to 
mean just what the Bible 1s — that is to say, whatever any — 
given writer chooses to think the Bible to be. When Paul af- 
firms in II Tim. ui. 16 that every Scripture is “inspired by 
God,” therefore, we are not to enter into a philological and ex- 
egetical investigation to discover what Paul meant to affirm by 
the use of this word, but simply to say that Paul must have 
meant to affirm the Bible to be what we find it to be. Surely no 
way could be invented which would more easily enable us to 
substitute our thought for the apostles’ thought, and to pro- 
claim our crudities under the sanction of their great names. 
Operating by it, Mr. Horton is enabled to assert that the Bible 
is “ inspired,” and yet to teach that God’s hand has entered it 
only in a providential way, by His dealings through long ages 
with a people who gradually wrought out a history, conceived 
hopes, and brought all through natural means to an expression 
in a faulty and often self-contradictory record, which we call 
inspired only “ because by reading it and studying it we can 
find our way to God, we can find what is His will for us and 
how we can carry out that will.” °° The most naive expression 
of the principle in question may be found in such a statement 
as the following, from the pen of Dr. W. G. Blaikie: “In our 
mode of dealing with this question the main difference between 
us is, that you lay your stress on certain general considerations, 
and on certain specific statements of Scripture. We, on the 
other hand, while accepting the specific statements, lay great 
stress also on the structure of Scripture as we find it, on certain 
phenomena which lie on the surface, and on the inextricable 
difficulties which are involved in carrying out your view in de- 
tail.” °* This statement justly called out the rebuke of Dr. 


PROD ECit, D..0! 

Pepa cit. p.. 240. 

51 “ Letter to the Rev. Andrew A. Bonar, D.D.” By William G. Blaikie, 
D.D., LL.D. 2d ed. Edinburgh: Macniven & Wallace, 1890. P. 5. 


204 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Robert Watts,” that “ while the principle of your theory is a 
mere inference from apparent discrepancies not as yet ex- 
plained, the principle of the theory you oppose is the formally 
expressed utterances of prophets and apostles, and of Christ 
Himself.” 

Under whatever safeguards, indeed, it may be attempted, 
and with whatever caution it may be prosecuted, the effort to 
modify the teaching of Scripture as to its own inspiration by an 
appeal to the observed characteristics of Scripture, is an at- 
tempt not to obtain a clearer knowledge of what the Scriptures 
teach, but to correct that teaching. And to correct the teaching 
of Scripture is to proclaim Scripture untrustworthy as a wit- 
ness to doctrine. The procedure in question is precisely similar 
to saying that the Bible’s doctrine of creation is to be derived 
not alone from the teachings of the Bible as to creation, but 
from the facts obtained through a scientific study of creation; 
that the Bible’s doctrine as to man is to be found not in the 
Bible’s deliverances on the subject, but “ while accepting these, 
we lay great stress also on the structure of man as we find him, 
and on the inextricable difficulties which are involved in carry- 
ing out the Bible’s teaching in detail”; that the Bible’s doc- 
trine of justification is to be obtained by retaining the term as 
commended by the common sense of the Christian world and 
understanding by it just what we find justification to be in 
actual life. It is precisely similar to saying that Mr. Darwin’s 
doctrine of natural selection is to be determined not solely by 
what Mr. Darwin says concerning it, but equally by what we, 
in our own independent study of nature, find to be true as to 
natural selection. A historian of thought who proceeded on 
such a principle would scarcely receive the commendation of 
students of history, however much his writings might serve 
certain party ends. Who does not see that underlying this whole 
method of procedure — in its best and in its worst estate alike 
— there is apparent an unwillingness to commit ourselves with- 
out reserve to the teaching of the Bible, either because that 


52 “ A Letter to the Rey. Prof. William G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D.” By Robert 
Watts, D.D., LL.D. Edinburgh: R. W. Hunter, 1890. P. 30. 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 205 


teaching is distrusted or already disbelieved; and that it is a 
grave logical error to suppose that the teaching of the Bible as 
to inspiration can be corrected in this way any otherwise than 
by showing it not to be in accordance with the facts? The pro- 
posed method, therefore, does not conduct us to a somewhat 
modified doctrine of inspiration, but to a disproof of inspira- 
tion; by correcting the doctrine delivered by the Biblical writ- 
ers, it discredits those writers as teachers of doctrine. 

Let it not be said that in speaking thus we are refusing the 
inductive method of establishing doctrine. We follow the in- - 
ductive method. When we approach the Scriptures to ascertain 
their doctrine of inspiration, we proceed by collecting the whole 
body of relevant facts. Every claim they make to inspiration is - 
a relevant fact; every statement they make concerning inspira- 
tion is a relevant fact; every allusion they make to the subject 
is a relevant fact; every fact indicative of the attitude they 
hold towards Scripture is a relevant fact. But the characteris- 
tics of their own writings are not facts relevant to the deter- 
mination of their doctrine. Nor let it be said that we are 
desirous of determining the true, as distinguished from the 
Scriptural, doctrine of inspiration otherwise than inductively. 
We are averse, however, to supposing tnat in such an inquiry 
the relevant “ phenomena ”’ of Scripture are not first of all and 
before all the claims of Scripture and second only to them its 
use of previous Scripture. And we are averse to excluding these 
primary “phenomena” and building our doctrine solely or 
mainly upon the characteristics and structure of Scripture, es- 
pecially as determined by some special school of modern re- 
search by critical methods certainly not infallible and to the 
best of our own judgment not even reasonable. And we are 
certainly averse to supposing that this induction, if it reaches 
results not absolutely consentaneous with the teachings of 
Scripture itself, has done anything other than discredit those 
teachings, or that in discrediting them, it has escaped discredit- 
ing the doctrinal authority of Scripture. 

Nor again is it to be thought that we refuse to use the ac- 
tual characteristics of Scripture as an aid in, and a check upon, 


206 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


our exegesis of Scripture, as we seek to discover its doctrine of 
inspiration. We do not simply admit, on the contrary, we affirm 
that in every sphere the observed fact may throw a broad and 
most helpful light upon the written text. It is so in the narrative 
of creation in the first chapter of Genesis; which is only begin- 
ning to be adequately understood as science is making her first 
steps in reading the records of God’s creative hand in the struc- 
ture of the world itself. It is preéminently so in the written 
prophecies, the dark sayings of which are not seldom first illu- 
minated by the light cast back upon them by their fulfillment. 
As Scripture interprets Scripture, and fulfillment interprets 
prediction, so may fact interpret assertion. And this is as true 
as regards the Scriptural assertion of the fact of inspiration as 
elsewhere. No careful student of the Bible doctrine of inspira- 
tion will neglect anxiously to try his conclusions as to the teach- 
ings of Scripture by the observed characteristics and “ struc- 
ture” of Seripture, and in trying he may and no doubt will find 
occasion to modify his conclusions as at first apprehended. But 
it is one thing to correct our exegetical processes and so modify 
our exegetical conclusions in the new light obtained by a study 
of the facts, and quite another to modify, by the facts of the 
structure of Scripture, the Scriptural teaching itself, as exegeti- 
cally ascertained; and it is to this latter that we should be led 
by making the facts of structure and the facts embedded in 
Scripture co-factors of the same rank in the so-called inductive 
ascertainment of the doctrine of inspiration. Direct exegesis af- 
ter all has its rights: we may seek aid from every quarter in our 
efforts to perform its processes with precision and obtain its re- 
sults with purity; but we cannot allow its results to be “ modi- 
fied” by extraneous considerations. Let us by all means be 
careful in determining the doctrine of Scripture, but let us also 
be fully honest in determining it; and if we count it a crime to 
permit our ascertainment of the facts recorded in Scripture ta 
be unduly swayed by our conception of the doctrine taught in 
Scripture, let us count it equally a crime to permit our ascer- 
tainment of its doctrine to be unduly swayed or colored by our 
conception of the nature of the facts of its structure or of the 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 207 


facts embedded in its record. We cannot, therefore, appeal from 
the doctrine of Scripture as exegetically established to the facts 
of the structure of Scripture or the facts embedded in Scrip- 
ture, in the hope of modifying the doctrine. If the teaching and 
the facts of Scripture are in harmony the appeal is useless. If 
they are in disharmony, we cannot follow both — we must 
choose one and reject the other. And the attempt to make the 
facts of Scripture co-factors of equal rank with the teaching of 
Scripture in ascertaining the true doctrine of inspiration, is 
really an attempt to modify the doctrine taught by Scripture 
by an appeal to the facts, while concealing from ourselves the 
fact that we have modified it, and in modifying corrected it, 
and, of course, in correcting it, discredited Scripture as a 
teacher of doctrine. 

Probably these four types of procedure will include most of 
the methods by which men are to-day seeking to free them- 
selves from the necessity of following the Scriptural doctrine 
of inspiration, while yet looking to Scripture as the source of 
doctrine. Is it not plain that on every one of them the outcome 
must be to discredit Scripture as a doctrinal guide? The hu- 
man mind is very subtle, but with all its subtlety it will hardly 
be able to find a way to refuse to follow Scripture in one of the — 
doctrines it teaches without undermining its authority as a 
teacher of doctrine. 


II 


IMMENSE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FOR THE 
BIBLICAL DOCTRINE 


It is only to turn another face of the proposition with 
which we are dealing towards us, to emphasize next the im- 
portant fact, that, the state of the case being such as we 
have found it, the evidence for the truth of the doctrine of 
the plenary inspiration of Scripture is just the whole body 
of evidence which goes to show that the apostles are trust- 
worthy teachers of doctrine. 


208 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Language is sometimes made use of which would seem 
to imply that the amount or weight of the evidence offered 
for the truth of the doctrine that the Scriptures are the 
Word of God in such a sense that their words deliver the 
truth of God without error, is small. It is on the contrary 
just the whole body of evidence which goes to prove the 
writers of the New Testament to be trustworthy as deliver- 
ers of doctrine. It is just the same evidence in amount and 
weight which is adduced in favor of any other Biblical 
doctrine. It is the same weight and amount of evidence pre- 
cisely which is adducible for the truth of the doctrines of the 
Incarnation, of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Christ, of 
Justification by Faith, of Regeneration by the Holy Spirit, 
of the Resurrection of the Body, of Life Everlasting. It is, 
of course, not absurdly intended that every Biblical doctrine 
is taught in the Scriptures with equal clearness, with equal 
explicitness, with equal frequency. Some doctrines are 
stated with an explicit precision that leaves little to sys- 
tematic theology in its efforts to define the truth on all sides, — 
except to repeat the words which the Biblical writers have 
used to teach it — as for example the doctrine of Justifica- 
tion by Faith. Others are not formulated in Scripture at all, 
but are taught only in their elements, which the systemati- 
cian must collect and combine and so arrive finally at the 
doctrine — as for example the doctrine of the Trinity. Some 
are adverted to so frequently as to form the whole warp and 
woof of Scripture — as for example the doctrine of redemp- 
tion in the blood of Christ. Others are barely alluded to here 
and there, in connections where the stress is really on other 
matters — as for example the doctrine of the fall of the 
angels. But however explicitly or incidentally, however fre- 
quently or rarely, however emphatically or allusively, they 
may be taught, when exegesis has once done its work and 
shown that they are taught by the Biblical writers, all these 
doctrines stand as supported by the same weight and amount 
of evidence — the evidence of the trustworthiness of the 
Biblical writers as teachers of doctrine. We cannot say that 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 209 


we will believe these writers when they assert a doctrine 
a hundred times and we will not believe them if they assert 
it only ten times or only once; that we will believe them in 
the doctrines they make the main subjects of discourse, 
but not in those which they advert to incidentally; that we 
will believe them in those that they teach as conclusions 
of formal arguments, but not in those which they use as 
premises wherewith to reach those conclusions; that we will 
believe them in those they explicitly formulate and dog- 
matically teach, but not in those which they teach only in © 
their separate parts and elements. The question is not how 
they teach a doctrine, but do they teach it; and when that 
question is once settled affirmatively, the weight of evidence 
that commends this doctrine to us as true is the same in 
every case; and that is the whole body of evidence which 
goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as 
teachers of doctrine. The Biblical doctrine of inspiration, 
therefore, has in its favor just this whole weight and amount 
of evidence. It follows on the one hand that it cannot ra- 
tionally be rejected save on the ground of evidence which 
will outweigh the whole body of evidence which goes to 
authenticate the Biblical writers as trustworthy witnesses to 
and teachers of doctrine. And it follows, on the other hand, 
that if the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is rejected, our 
freedom from its trammels is bought logically at the some- 
what serious cost of discrediting the evidence which goes 
to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as teachers 
of doctrine. In this sense, the fortunes of distinctive Chris- 
tianity are bound up with those of the Biblical doctrine of 
inspiration. 

Let it not be said that thus we found the whole Christian | 
system upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration. We found 
the whole Christian system on the doctrine of plenary in- 
spiration as little as we found it upon the doctrine of 
angelic existences. Were there no such thing as inspiration, 
Christianity would be true, and all its essential doctrines 
would be credibly witnessed to us in the generally trust- 


210 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


worthy reports of the teaching of our Lord and of His 
authoritative agents in founding the Church, preserved in 
the writings of the apostles and their first followers, and in 
the historical witness of the living Church. Inspiration is 
not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even 
the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. It is the last 
and crowning fact as to the Scriptures. These we first prove 
authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, be- 
fore we prove them inspired. And the proof of their authentic- 
ity, credibility, general trustworthiness would give us a 
firm basis for Christianity prior to any knowledge on our 
part of their inspiration, and apart indeed from the existence 
of inspiration. The present writer, in order to prevent all 
misunderstanding, desires to repeat here what he has said 
on every proper occasion — that he is far from contending 
that without inspiration there could be no Christianity. 
“Without any inspiration,’ he added, when making this 
affirmation on his induction into the work of teaching the 
Bible ® — ‘‘without any inspiration we could have had 
Christianity; yea, and men could still have heard the truth 
and through it been awakened, and justified, and sanctified, 
and glorified. The verities of our faith would remain his- 
torically proven to us — so bountiful has God been in His 
fostering care — even had we no Bible; and through those 
verities, salvation.’”’ We are in entire harmony in this matter 
with what we conceive to be the very true statement re- 
cently made by Dr. George P. Fisher, that ‘‘if the authors of 
the Bible were credible reporters of revelations of God, 
whether in the form of historical transactions of which they 
were witnesses, or of divine mysteries that were unveiled 
to their minds, their testimony would be entitled to belief, 


53 “Discourses Occasioned by the Inauguration of Benj. B. Warfield, D.D.; 
to the Chair of New Testament Exegesis and Literature in the Western Theo- 
logical Seminary, April 25, 1880.” Pittsburgh, 1880. P. 46. Cf. “Inspiration.” By 
Prof. A. A. Hodge and Prof. B. B. Warfield. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of 
Publication, 1881. Pp. 7, 8 (also in The Presbyterian Review for April, 1881). Also, 
“The Inspiration of the Scriptures.” By Francis L. Patton, D.D. Philadelphia: 
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869. Pp. 22, 23, 54. 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 211 


even if they were shut up to their unaided faculties in com- 
municating what they had thus received.” ** We are in en- 
tire sympathy in this matter, therefore, with the protest 
which Dr. Marcus Dods raised in his famous address at the 
meeting of the Alliance of the Reformed Churches at London, 
against representing that ‘‘the infallibility of the Bible is the 
ground of the whole Christian faith.’ > We judge with him 
that it is very important indeed that such a misapprehen- 
sion, if it is anywhere current, should be corrected. What we 
are at present arguing is something entirely different from 
such an overstrained view of the importance of inspiration 
to the very existence of Christian faith, and something 
which has no connection with it. We do not think that the 
doctrine of plenary inspiration is the ground of Christian 
faith, but if it was held and taught by the New Testament 
writers, we think it an element in the Christian faith; a very 
important and valuable element; *® an element that appeals 
to our acceptance on precisely the same ground as every 


54 The Congregationalist, Nov. 3, 1892; The Magazine of Christian Literature, 
Dec., 1892, p. 236, first column. This whole column should be read; its statement 
and illustration are alike admirable. 

55 This address may be most conveniently consulted in The Expositor for 
October, 1888, pp. 301, 302. In expressing our concurrence with portions of this 
address and of Dr. Fisher’s papers just quoted, we are not to be understood, of 
course, as concurring with their whole contents. 

66 How important and valuable this element of the Christian faith is, it is not 
the purpose of this paper to point out. Let it suffice here to say briefly that it is 
(1) the element which gives detailed certitude to the delivery of doctrine in the 
New Testament, and (2) the element by which the individual Christian is brought 
into immediate relation to God in the revelation of truth through the prophets 
and apostles. The importance of these factors in the Christian life could not be 
overstated. The importance of the recognition of plenary inspiration to the preser- 
vation of sound doctrine is negatively illustrated by the progress of Rationalism, as 
thus outlined briefly by Dr. Charles Hodge (‘‘Syst. Theol.,” iii. p. 195): “Those 
who admitted the divine origin of the Scriptures got rid of its distinctive doctrines 
by the adoption of a low theory of inspiration and by the application of arbitrary 
principles of interpretation. Inspiration was in the first instance confined to the 
religious teachings of the Bible, then to the ideas or truths, but not to the form 
in which they were presented, nor to the arguments by which they were sup- 
ported. ... In this way a wet sponge was passed over all the doctrines of re- 
demption and their outlines obliterated.”’ It looks as if the Church were extremely 
slow in reading the most obvious lessons of history. 


212 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


other element of the faith, viz., on the ground of our recogni- 
tion of the writers of the New Testament as trustworthy 
witnesses to doctrine; an element of the Christian faith, 
therefore, which cannot be rejected without logically under- 
mining our trust in all the other elements of distinctive 
Christianity by undermining the evidence on which this 
trust rests. We must indeed prove the authenticity, credi- 
bility and general trustworthiness of the New Testament 
writings before we prove their inspiration; and even were 
they not inspired this proof would remain valid and we 
should give them accordant trust. But just because this 
proof is valid, we must trust these writings in their witness 
to their inspiration, if they give such witness; and if we re- 
fuse to trust them here, we have in principle refused them 
trust everywhere. In such circumstances their inspiration is 
bound up inseparably with their trustworthiness, and there- 
fore with all else that we receive on trust from them. 

On the other hand, we need to remind ourselves that to 
say that the amount and weight of the evidence of the truth 
of the Biblical doctrine of inspiration is measured by the 
amount and weight of the evidence for the general credi- 
bility and trustworthiness of the New Testament writers 
as witnesses to doctrine, is an understatement rather than 
an overstatement of the matter. For if we trust them at all 
we will trust them in the account they give of the person and 
in the report they give of the teaching of Christ; whereupon, 
as they report Him as teaching the same doctrine of Scrip- 
ture that they teach, we are brought face to face with divine 
testimony to this doctrine of inspiration. The argument, 
then, takes the form given it by Bishop Wordsworth: ‘‘ The 
New Testament canonizes the Old; the INCARNATE Worpb 
sets His seal on the WrittEN Worp. The Incarnate Word 
is God; therefore, the inspiration of the Old Testament is 
authenticated by God Himself.” °’? And, again, the general 
trustworthiness of the writers of the New Testament gives 
us the right and imposes on us the duty of accepting their 

57 Wordsworth, ‘“‘On the Canor,” p. 51, Am. Ed. 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION _ 213 


witness to the relation the Holy Ghost bears to their teach- 
ing, as, for example, when Paul tells us that the things which 
they uttered they uttered ‘‘not in words taught by human 
wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit; joining Spirit- 
given things with Spirit-given things’’ (1 Cor. ii. 13), and 
Peter asserts that the Gospel was preached by them ‘‘in 
the Holy Spirit’? (I Peter i. 12); and this relation asserted | 
to exist between the Holy Ghost and their teaching, whether 
oral or written (I Cor. xiv. 37; II Thess. 11. 15, 11. 6-14), gives 
the sanction of the Holy Ghost to their doctrine of Holy 
Scripture, whatever that is found to be. So that, even 
though we begin on the lowest ground, we may find ourselves 
compelled to say, as Bishop Wilberforce found himself com- 
pelled to say: ‘‘In brief, my belief is this: The whole Bible 
comes to us as ‘the Word of God’ under the sanction of God, 
the Holy Ghost.’’ °* The weight of the testimony to the 
Biblical doctrine of inspiration, in a word, is no less than 
the weight to be attached to the testimony of God— God the 
Son and God the Spirit. 7 

But our present purpose is not to draw out the full value 
of the testimony, but simply to emphasize the fact that on 
the emergence of the exegetical fact that the Scriptures of 
the New Testament teach this doctrine, the amount and 
weight of evidence for its truth must be allowed to be the 
whole amount and weight of the evidence that the writers 
of the New Testament are trustworthy as teachers of doc- 
trine. It is not on some shadowy and doubtful evidence that 
the doctrine is based — not on an a priort conception of 
what inspiration ought to be, not on a ‘“‘tradition”’ of doc- 
trine in the Church, though all the a priorz considerations 
and the whole tradition of doctrine in the Church are also 
thrown in the scale for and not in that against this doctrine; 
but first on the confidence which we have in the writers of 
the New Testament as doctrinal guides, and ultimately on 
whatever evidence of whatever kind and force exists to 
justify that confidence. In this sense, we repeat, the cause of 

88 “Life of the Rt. Rev. S. Wilberforce, D.D.,” Vol. III. p. 149. 


214 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


distinctive Christianity is bound up with the cause of the 
Biblical doctrine of inspiration. We accept Christianity in all 
its distinctive doctrines on no other ground than the credi- 
bility and trustworthiness of the Bible as a guide to truth; 
and on this same ground we must equally accept its doctrine 
of inspiration. ‘‘If we may not accept its account of itself,’’ 
asks Dr. Purves, pointedly, ‘‘why should we care to ascer- 
tain its account of other things?’’ ® ° 


Ill 


IMMENSE PRESUMPTION AGAINST ALLEGED Facts 
CONTRADICTORY OF THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE 


We are again making no new affirmation but only looking 
from a slightly different angle upon the same proposition 
with which we have been dealing from the first, when we 
emphasize next the fact, that the state of the case being as 
we have found it, we approach the study of the so-called 
‘““phenomena”’ of the Scriptures with a very strong presump- 
tion that these Scriptures contain no errors, and that any 
‘“phenomena”’ apparently inconsistent with their inerrancy 
are so in appearance only: a presumption the measure of 
which is just the whole amount and weight of evidence that 
the New Testament writers are trustworthy as teachers of 
doctrine. 

It seems to be often tacitly assumed that the Biblical 
doctrine of inspiration cannot be confidently ascertained 
until all the facts concerning the contents and structure and 
characteristics of Scripture are fully determined and allowed 
for. This is obviously fallacious. What Paul, for example, 
believed as to the nature of Scripture is obviously an easily 
separable question from what the nature of Scripture really 
is. On the other hand, the assumption that we cannot con- 
fidently accept the Biblical doctrine of inspiration as true 


59 “St. Paul and Inspiration.”’ Inaugural Address, ete. A. D. F. Randolph & 
Co., 1892. P. 52. Presbyterian and Reformed Review, January, 1893, p. 21. 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 215 


until criticism and exegesis have said their last word upon 
the structure, the text, and the characteristics of Scripture, 
even to the most minute fact, is more plausible. But it is far 
from obviously true. Something depends upon our estimate 
of the force of the mass of evidence which goes to show the 
trustworthiness of the apostles as teachers of truth, and of 
the clearness with which they announce their teaching as 
to inspiration. It is conceivable, for example, that the force 
of the evidence of their trustworthiness may be so great 
that we should be fully justified in yielding implicit confi- 
dence to their teaching, even though many and serious diffi- 
culties should stand in the way of accepting it. This, indeed, 
is exactly what we do in our ordinary use of Scripture as a 
source of doctrine. Who doubts that the doctrines of the 
- Trinity and of the Incarnation present difficulties to rational 
construction? Who doubts that the doctrines of native de- 
merit and total depravity, inability and eternal punishment 
raise objections in the natural heart? We accept these doc- 
trines and others which ought to be much harder to credit, 
such as the Biblical teaching that God so loved sinful man 
as to give His only-begotten Son to die for him, not because 
their acceptance is not attended with difficulties, but be- 
cause our confidence in the New Testament as a doctrinal 
guide is so grounded in unassailable and compelling evidence, 
that we believe its teachings despite the difficulties which 
they raise. We do not and we cannot wait until all these 
difficulties are fully explained before we yield to the teaching 
of the New Testament the fullest confidence of our minds 
and hearts. How then can it be true that we are to wait until 
all difficulties are removed before we can accept with con- 
fidence the Biblical doctrine of inspiration? In relation to 
this doctrine alone, are we to assume the position that we 
will not yield faith in response to due and compelling evi- 
dence of the trustworthiness of the teacher, until all diff- 
culties are explained to our satisfaction? — that we must 
fully understand and comprehend before we will believe? 
Or is the point this — that we can suppose ourselves possibly 


216 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


mistaken in everything else except our determination of the 
characteristics and structure of Scripture and the facts 
stated therein? Surely if we do not need to wait until we 
understand how God can be both one and three, how Christ 
can be both human and divine, how man can be both un- 
able and responsible, how an act can be both free and cer- 
tain, how man can be both a sinner and righteous in God’s 
sight, before we accept, on the authority of the teaching of 
Scripture, the doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, 
of man’s state as a sinner, of God’s eternal predestination of 
the acts of free agents, and of acceptance on the ground of 
Christ’s righteousness, because of the weight of the evidence 
which goes to prove that Scripture trustworthy as a teacher 
of divine truth; we may on the same compelling evidence 
accept, in full confidence, the teaching of the same Scrip- 
ture as to the nature of its own inspiration, prior to a full 
- understanding of how all the phenomena of Scripture are to 
be adjusted to it. 

No doubt it is perfectly true and is to be kept in mind 
-that the claim of a writing to be infallible may be mistaken 
or false. Such a claim has been put forth in behalf of and by 
other writings besides the Bible, and has been found utterly 
inconsistent with the observed characteristics of those 
writings. An a priorz possibility may be asserted to exist in 
the case of the Bible, that a comparison of its phenomena 
with its doctrine may bring out a glaring inconsistency. 
The test of the truth of the claims of the Bible to be inspired 
of God through comparison with its contents, characteristics 
and phenomena, the Bible cannot expect to escape; and the 
lovers of the Bible will be the last to deny the validity of it. 
By all means let the doctrine of the Bible be tested by the 
facts and let the test be made all the more, not the less, 
‘stringent and penetrating because of the great issues that 
hang upon it. If the facts are inconsistent with the doctrine, 
let us all know it, and know it so clearly that the matter is 
put beyond doubt. But let us not conceal from ourselves the 
greatness of the issues involved:in the test, lest we approach 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 217 


the test in too light a spirit, and make shipwreck of faith in 
the trustworthiness of the apostles as teachers of doctrine, 
with the easy indifference of a man who corrects the inci- 
dental errors of a piece of gossip. Nor is this appeal to the 
seriousness of the issues involved in any sense an appeal to 
deal deceitfully with the facts concerning or stated in the 
Bible, through fear of disturbing our confidence in a com- 
fortable doctrine of its infallibility. It is simply an appeal to 
common sense. If you are told that a malicious lie has been 
uttered by some unknown person you may easily yield the 
report a languid provisional assent; such things are not im- 
possible, unfortunately in this sinful world not unexampled. 
But if it is told you of your loved and trusted friend, you will 
probably demand the most stringent proof at the point of 
your walking stick. So far as this, Robert Browning has 
missed neither nature nor right reason, when he makes his 
Ferishtah point out how much more evidence we require 
in proof of a fact which brings us loss than what is sufficient _ 
to command 


“The easy acquiescence of mankind 
In matters nowise worth dispute.” 


If it is right to test most carefully the claim of every settled 
and accepted faith by every fact asserted in rebuttal of it, © 
it must be equally right, nay incumbent, to scrutinize most 
closely the evidence for an asserted fact, which, if genuine, 
wounds in its vitals some important interest. If it would be 
a crime to refuse to consider most carefully and candidly 
any phenomena of Scripture asserted to be inconsistent with 
its inerrancy, it would be equally a crime to accept the 
asserted reality of phenomena of Scripture, which, if real, 
strike at the trustworthiness of the apostolic witness to doc- 
trine, on any evidence of less than demonstrative weight. 
But we approach the consideration of these phenomena 
alleged to be inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of in- 
spiration not only thus with what may be called, though in 
a high sense, a sentimental presumption against their reality. 


21Sss REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


The presumption is an eminently rational one, and is capable 
of somewhat exact estimation. We do not adopt the doctrine 
of the plenary inspiration of Scripture on sentimental 
grounds, nor even, as we have already had occasion to re- 
mark, on a priori or general grounds of whatever kind. We 
adopt it specifically because it is taught us as truth by 
Christ and His apostles, in the Scriptural record of their 
teaching, and the evidence for its truth is, therefore, as we 
have also already pointed out, precisely that evidence, in 
weight and amount, which vindicates for us the trust- 
worthiness of Christ and His apostles as teachers of doctrine. 
Of course, this evidence is not in the strict logical sense 
‘‘demonstrative;” it is ‘‘probable’”’ evidence. It therefore 
leaves open the metaphysical possibility of its being mis- 
taken. But it may be contended that it is about as great in 
amount and weight as ‘‘probable”’ evidence can be made, 
and that the strength of conviction which it is adapted to 
produce may be and should be practically equal to that 
produced by demonstration itself. But whatever weight it 
has, and whatever strength of conviction it is adapted to 
produce, it is with this weight of evidence behind us and 
with this strength of conviction as to the unreality of any 
alleged phenomena contradictory of the Biblical doctrine of 
inspiration, that we approach the study of the character- 
istics, the structure, and the detailed statements of the 
Bible. Their study is not to be neglected; we have not 
attained through ‘“‘probable”’ evidence apodeictic certainty 
of the Bible’s infallibility. But neither is the reality of the 
alleged phenomena inconsistent with the Bible’s doctrine, 
to be allowed without sufficient evidence. Their reality can- 
not be logically or rationally recognized unless the evidence 
for it be greater in amount and weight than the whole mass 
of evidence for the trustworthiness of the Biblical writers 
as teachers,of doctrine. 

It is not to be thought that this amounts to a recom- 
mendation of strained exegesis in order to rid the Bible of ' 
phenomena adverse to the truth of the Biblical doctrine of 


THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 219 


inspiration. It amounts to a recommendation of great care 
in the exegetical determination of these alleged phenomena; 
it amounts to a recommendation to allow that our exegesis 
determining these phenomena is not infallible. But it is far 
from recommending either strained or artificial exegesis of 
any kind. Weare not bound to harmonize the alleged phenom- 
ena with the Bible doctrine; and if we cannot harmonize 
them save by strained or artificial exegesis they would be 
better left unharmonized. We are not bound, however, on 
the other hand, to believe that they are unharmonizable, | 
because we cannot harmonize them save by strained exege- 
sis. Our individual fertility in exegetical expedients, our indi- 
vidual insight into exegetical truth, our individual capacity 
of understanding are not the measure of truth. If we cannot 
harmonize without straining, let us leave unharmonized. 
It is not necessary for us to see the harmony that it should 
exist or even be recognized by us as existing. But it is neces- 
sary for us to believe the harmony to be possible and real, 
provided that we are not prepared to say that we clearly 
see that on any conceivable hypothesis (conceivable to us 
or conceivable to any other intelligent beings) the harmony 
is impossible — if the trustworthiness of the Biblical writers 
who teach us the doctrine of plenary inspiration is really 
safeguarded to us on evidence which we cannot disbelieve. 
In that case every unharmonized passage remains a case of 
difficult harmony and does not pass into the category of 
objections to plenary inspiration. It can pass into the cate- 
gory of objections only if we are prepared to affirm that we 
clearly see that it is, on any conceivable hypothesis of its 
meaning, clearly inconsistent with the Biblical doctrine of 
inspiration. In that case we would no doubt need to give up 
the Biblical doctrine of inspiration; but with it we must also 
give up our confidence in the Biblical writers as teachers of 
doctrine. And if we cannot reasonably give up this latter, 
neither can we reasonably allow that the phenomena ap- 
parently inconsistent with the former are real, or really in- 

consistent with it. And this is but to.say that we approach 


220 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the study of these phenomena with a presumption against 
their being such as will disprove the Biblical doctrine of 
inspiration — or, we may add (for this is but the same thing 
in different words), correct or modify the Biblical doctrine 
of inspiration — which is measured precisely by the amount 
and weight of the evidence which goes to show that the 
Bible is a trustworthy guide to doctrine. 

The importance of emphasizing these, as it would seem, 
very obvious principles, does not arise out of need for a very 
great presumption in order to overcome the difficulties 
arising from the ‘‘phenomena”’ of Scripture, as over against 
its doctrine of inspiration. Such difficulties are not specially 
numerous or intractable. Dr. Charles Hodge justly charac- 
terizes those that have been adduced by disbelievers in the 
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, as ‘‘for the most part 
trivial,’ ‘only apparent,’’ and marvelously few “‘of any real 
importance.’”’ They bear, he adds, about the same relation 
to the whole that a speck of sandstone detected here and 
there in the marble of the Parthenon would bear to that 
building.” They do not for the most part require explaining 
away, but only to be fairly understood in order to void them. 
They constitute no real strain upon faith, but when ap- 
proached in a candid spirit one is left continually marveling 
at the excessive fewness of those which do not, like ghosts, 
melt away from vision as soon as faced. Moreover, as every 
student of the history of exegesis and criticism knows, they 
are a progressively vanishing quantity. Those which seemed 
most obvious and intractable a generation or two ago, re- 
main to-day as only too readily forgotten warnings against 

60 “Systematic Theology,” i. pp. 169, 170: We have purposely adduced this 
passage here to enable us to protest against the misuse of it, which, in the exigen- 
cies of the present controversy, has been made, as if Dr. Hodge was in this pas- 
sage admitting the reality of the alleged errors. The passage occurs in the reply 
to objections to the doctrine, not in the development of the doctrine itself, and 
is of the nature of an argumentum ad hominem. How far Dr. Hodge was from 
admitting the reality of error in the original Biblical text may be estimated from 
the frequency with which he asserts its freedom from error in the immediately 


preceding context — pp. 152, 155, 163 (no less than three times on this page), 
165, 166, 169 (no less than five times). 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 221 


the ineradicable and inordinate dogmatism of the oppon- 
ents of the inerrancy of the Bible, who over-ride continually 
every canon of historical and critical caution in their eager 
violence against the doctrine that they assail. What scorn 
they expressed of ‘‘apologists’”? who doubted whether Luke 
was certainly in error in assigning a ‘‘ pro-consul”’ to Cyprus, 
whether he was in error in making Lysanias a contemporary © 
tetrarch with the Herodian rulers, and the like. How easily - 
that scorn is forgotten as the progress of discovery has one 
by one vindicated the assertions of the Biblical historians. 
The matter has come to such a pass, indeed, in the progress 
of discovery, that there is a sense in which it may be said 
that the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible can now be 
based, with considerable confidence, on its observed ‘‘ pheno- 
mena.’ What marvelous accuracy is characteristic of its 
historians! Dr. Fisher, in a paper already referred to, invites 
his readers to read Archibald Forbes’ article in the Nineteenth 
Century) tor March) 91892) .0n 15) Napoleon’) the” Third) ata 

Sedan,’”’ that they may gain some idea of how the truth of 

history as to the salient facts may be preserved amid ‘‘hope- — 

less and bewildering discrepancies in regard to details,’’ in 
the reports of the most trustworthy eye-witnesses. The 
article is instructive in this regard. And it is instructive in 
another regard also. What a contrast exists between this 
mass of “hopeless and bewildering discrepancies in regard 
to details,’”’? among the accounts of a single important trans- 
action, written by careful and watchful eye-witnesses, who 
were on the ground for the precise purpose of gathering the 
facts for report, and who were seeking to give an exact and 
honest account. of the events which they witnessed, and the 
marvelous accuracy of the Biblical writers! If these ‘‘ hope- 
less and bewildering discrepancies”’ are consistent with the 
honesty and truthfulness and general trustworthiness of the 
uninspired writers, may it not be argued that the so much 
greater accuracy attained by the Biblical writers when 
describing not one event but the history of ages — and a 
history filled with pitfalls for the unwary — has something 


222 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


more than honesty and truthfulness behind it, and warrants 
the attribution to them of something more than general trust- 
worthiness? And, if in the midst of this marvel of general 
accuracy there remain here and there a few difficulties as yet 
not fully explained in harmony with it, or if in the course of 
the historical vindication of it in general a rare difficulty 
(as in the case of some of the statements of Daniel) seems to 
increase in sharpness, are we to throw ourselves with 
desperate persistency into these ‘‘last ditches” and strive 
by our increased insistence upon the impregnability of them 
to conceal from men that the main army has been beaten 
from the field? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that 
these difficulties, too, will receive their explanation with 
advancing knowledge? And is it not the height of the un- 
reasonable to treat them like the Sibylline books as of ever- 
increasing importance in proportion to their decreasing 
number? The importance of keeping in mind that there is 
a presumption against the reality of these ‘‘inconsistent 
phenomena,” and that the presumption is of a weight 
measurable only by the weight of evidence which vindicates 
the general trustworthiness of the Bible as a teacher of 
doctrine, does not arise from the need of so great a presump- 
tion in order to overcome the weight of the alleged opposing 
facts. Those facts are not specially numerous, important or 
intractable, and they are, in the progress of research, a 
vanishing quantity. 

The importance of keeping in mind the principle in 
question arises rather from the importance of preserving a 
correct logical method. There are two ways of approaching 
the study of the inspiration of the Bible. One proceeds by 
obtaining first the doctrine of inspiration taught by the 
Bible as applicable to itself, and then testing this doctrine 
by the facts as to the Bible as ascertained by Biblical 
criticism and exegesis. This is good logical procedure; and in 
the presence of a vast mass of evidence for the general trust- 
worthiness of the Biblical writings as witnesses of doctrine, 
and for the appointment of their writers as teachers of 


. 
; 
. 
f 
J 
‘ 
f 
, 
¥ 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 223 


divine truth to men, and for the presence of the Holy Spirit 
with and in them aiding them in their teaching (in whatever 
degree and with whatever effect) — it would seem to be the 
only logical and proper mode of approaching the question. 
The other method proceeds by seeking the doctrine of 
inspiration in the first instance through a comprehensive 
induction from the facts as to the structure and contents of 
the Bible, as ascertained by critical and exegetical processes, 
treating all these facts as co-factors of the same rank for 
the induction. If in this process the facts of structure and 
the facts embedded in the record of Scripture — which 
are called, one-sidedly indeed but commonly, by the class 
of writers who adopt this procedure, ‘‘the phenomena” of 
Scripture — alone are considered, it would be difficult to 
arrive at a precise doctrine of inspiration, at the best: 
though, as we have already pointed out, a degree and kind 
of accuracy might be vindicated for the Scriptures which 
might lead us to suspect and to formulate as the best account 
of it, some divine assistance to the writers’ memory, mental 
processes and expression. If the Biblical facts and teaching 
are taken as co-factors in the induction, the procedure (as we 
have already pointed out) is liable to the danger of modifying 
the teaching by the facts without clear recognition of what 
is being done; the result of which would be the loss from 
observation of one main fact of errancy, viz., the inaccuracy 
of the teaching of the Scriptures as to their own inspiration. 
This would vitiate the whole result: and this vitiation of the 
result can be avoided only by ascertaining separately the 
teaching of Scripture as to its own inspiration, and by ac- 
counting the results of this ascertainment one of the facts of 
the induction. Then we are in a position to judge by the 
comparison of this fact with the other facts, whether this 
fact of teaching is in accord or in disaccord with those facts 
of performance. If it is in disaccord, then of course this dis- 
accord is the main factor in the case: the writers are con- 
victed of false teaching. If it is in accord, then, if the teaching 
is not proved by the accord, it is at least. left credible, and 


224 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


may be believed with whatever confidence may be justified 
by the evidence which goes to show that these writers are 
trustworthy as deliverers of doctrine. And if nice and difh- 
cult questions arise in the comparison of the fact of teaching 
with the facts of performance, it is inevitable that the rela- 
tive weight of the evidence for the trustworthiness of the two 
sets of facts should be the deciding factor in determining 
the truth. This is as much as to say that the asserted facts 
as to performance must give way before the fact as to teach- 
ing, unless the evidence on which they are based as facts 
outweighs the evidence on which the teaching may be ac- 
credited as true. But this correction of the second method of 
procedure, by which alone it can be made logical in form or 
valid in result, amounts to nothing less than setting it aside 
altogether and reverting to the first method, according to 
which the teaching of Scripture is first to be determined, 
and then this teaching to be tested by the facts of per- 
formance. 

The importance of proceeding according to the true 
logical method may be illustrated by the observation that 
the conclusions actually arrived at by students of the sub- 
ject seem practically to depend on the logical method 
adopted. In fact, the difference here seems mainly a differ- 
ence in point of view. If we start from the Scripture doctrine 
of inspiration, we approach the phenomena with the ques- 
tion whether they will negative this doctrine, and we find 
none able to stand against it, commended to us as true, as 
it is, by the vast mass of evidence available to prove the 
trustworthiness of the Scriptural writers as teachers of doc- 
trine. But if we start simply with a collection of the phenom- 
ena, classifying and reasoning from them, whether alone 
or in conjunction with the Scriptural statements, it may 
easily happen with us, as it happened with certain of old, 
that meeting with some things hard to be understood, we 
may be ignorant and unstable enough to wrest them to our 
own intellectual destruction, and so approach the Biblical 
doctrine of inspiration set upon explaining it away. The 





THE REAL PROBLEM OF INSPIRATION 220 


value of having the Scripture doctrine as a clue in our hands, 
is thus fairly illustrated by the ineradicable inability of the 
whole negative school to distinguish between difficulties and 
proved errors. If then we ask what we are to do with the 
numerous phenomena of Scripture inconsistent with verbal 
inspiration, which, so it is alleged, ‘‘criticism”’ has brought 
to light, we must reply: Challenge them in the name of the 
New Testament doctrine, and ask for their credentials. 
They have no credentials that can stand before that chal- 
lenge. No single error has as yet been demonstrated to occur 
in the Scriptures as given by God to His Church. And every 
critical student knows, as already pointed out, that the — 
progress of investigation has been a continuous process of 
removing difficulties, until scarcely a shred of the old list of 
‘Biblical Errors’? remains to hide the nakedness of this 
moribund contention. To say that we do not wish to make 
claims ‘‘for which we have only this to urge, that they can- 
not be absolutely disproved,” is not to the point; what is to 
the point is to say, that we cannot set aside the presumption 
arising from the general trustworthiness of Scripture, that 
its doctrine of inspiration is true, by any array of contra- 
dictory facts, each one of which is fairly disputable. We 
must have indisputable errors — which are not forthcoming. 

The real problem brought before the Churches by the 
present debate ought now to be sufficiently plain. In its 
deepest essence it is whether we can still trust the Bible as a 
guide in doctrine, as a teacher of truth. It is not simply 
whether we can explain away the Biblical doctrine of in- 
spiration so as to allow us to take a different view from what 
has been common of the structure and characteristics of the 
Bible. Nor, on the other hand, is it simply whether we may 
easily explain the facts, established as facts, embedded in 
Scripture, consistently with the teaching of Scripture as to 
the nature, extent and effects of inspiration. It is specifically 
whether the results proclaimed by a special school of Biblical 
criticism — which are of such a character, as is now ad- 
mitted by all, as to necessitate, if adopted, a new view of the 


226 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Bible and of its inspiration — rest on a basis of evidence 
strong enough to meet and overcome the weight of evidence, 
whatever that may be in kind and amount, which goes to 
show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as teachers 
of doctrine. If we answer this question in the affirmative, 
then no doubt we shall have not only a new view of the Bible 
and of its inspiration but also a whole new theology, because 
we must seek a new basis for doctrine. But if we answer it in 
the negative, we may possess our souls in patience and be 
assured that the Scriptures are as trustworthy witnesses to 
truth when they declare a doctrine of Inspiration as when 
they declare a doctrine of Incarnation or of Redemption, 
even though in the one case as in the other difficulties may 
remain, the full explanation of which is not yet clear to us. 
The real question, in a word, is not a new question but the 
perennial old question, whether the basis of our doctrine is 
to be what the Bible teaches, or what men teach. And this 
is a question which is to be settled on the old method, viz., 
on our estimate of the weight and value of the evidence 
which places the Bible in our hands as a teacher of doctrine. 


VII 
“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 





~ 


ft 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 


THE phrase, ‘‘ Given by inspiration of God,” or ‘‘ Inspired 
of God,” occurs, as is well-known, but once in the New Testa- 
ment — in the classical passage, to wit, II Tim. ii. 16, which 
is rendered in the Authorized Version, ‘‘ All Scripture 7s given 
by inspiration of God,’ and by the Revised Version, ‘‘ Every 
Scripture inspired of God is, ete.’’ The Greek word repre- 
sented by it, and standing in this passage as an epithet or 
predicate of ‘‘Scripture’’ — @eémrvevaros — though occurring 
here only in the New Testament and found nowhere earlier 
in all Greek literature, has nevertheless not hitherto seemed 
of doubtful interpretation. Its form, its subsequent usage, 
the implications of parallel terms and of the analogy of faith, 
have combined with the suggestions of the context to assign 
to it a meaning which has been constantly attributed to it 
from the first records of Christian interpretation until 
yesterday. 

This unvarying understanding of the word is thus re- 
ported by the leading lexicographers: Schleusner ‘ New Test. 
Lexicon.’ Glasgow reprint of fourth Leipzig edition, 1824: 


‘“Oedrvevatos, ov, 6, 4, afflatu divino actus, divino quodam spiritu 
afflatus, et partim de hominibus usurpatur, quorum sensus et sermones 
ad vim divinam referendi sunt, v. c. poétrs, faticidis, prophetis, auguri- 
bus, qui etiam eodidaxror vocantur, partim de 7zpsis rebus, notronibus, 
sermonibus, et scriptis, a Deo suggestis, et divino instructu natis, ex Beds 
et mvéw spiro, quod, ut Latinum afflo, de diis speciatim usurpatur, 
quorum vi homines interdum ita agi existimabantur, ut notiones 
rerum, antea ignotarum, insolito quodam modo conciperent atque 
mente vehementius concitata in sermones sublimiores et elegantiores 
erumperent. Conf. Cic. pro Archia c. 14; Virgil. Aen. 111, 358, vi, 50. 
In N. T. semel legitur I] Tim. i. 16, raca ypad7 Oedrvevoros omnis 


1 From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, v. XI, pp. 89-1380. 
229 


230 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Scriptura divinitus inspirata, seu, que est originis divine. coll. IT Pet 
i. 21. Syrus.... scriptura, que per spiritum scripta est. Conjunxit 
nempe actionem scribendi cum actione inspirandi. Apud Plutarchum 
T. ix. p. 583. ed. Reiske. Oedrvevator dverpor sunt somnia a diis immissa.”’ 


Robinson ‘‘Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testa- 
ment,’’ new ed., New. York, 1872: 


““Bedrvevatos, ov, 6, 7, Adj. (eds, rvew), God-inspired, inbreathed of 
God, II Tim. iii. 16 raca ypady Gedrvevoros. — Plut. de Placit. Philo- 
soph. 5. 2, rovs dvelpous tovs Peorvevarous. Phocylid. 121 ris bé beomvebarou 
codins Aoyos éotiv apioros. Comp. Jos. c. Ap. 1. 7 [at ypadai] rav 
TpopnTav Kata THy érlrvoray THY ad TOD Beod uabovTwy. Cic. pro Arch. 8, 
‘poetam ... quasi divino quodam spiritu inflari.’”’ 


Thayer-Grimm “Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa- 
ment,’ New York, 1887: 


““Oedrvevotos, —ov, (Beds and rvéw), inspired by God: ypad@n, 1. e. the 
contents of Scripture, II Tim. ili. 16 [see was I. 1 c.]; codin, [pseudo-] 
Phocyl. 121; dvecpo., Plut. de plac. phil. 5, 2, 3 p. 904f.; [Orac. Sibyll. 
5, 406 (cf. 308); Nonn. paraphr. ev. Ioan. 1, 99]. (€uavevoros also is 
used passively, but a&vevoros, ejrvevotos, tupimvevaTos, [dvadtarrvevoros |, 
actively [and dvcavarvevoros appar. either act. or pass.; cf. W. 96 (92) 
note ].)”’ 


Cremer “ Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek”’ 
ed. 2, E. T., Edinburgh, 1878: 


““Oedrvevatos, prompted by God, divinely inspired. II Tim. ii. 16, 
taca ypady 6. In profane Greek it occurs only in Plut. de placit. philos. 
v. 2, dverpor OedrrvevaTor (kar’ avayKny yivovrat), opposed to dvorxoi. The 
formation of the word cannot be traced to the use of rvéw, but only 
of éumvéw. Cf. Xen. Hell. vil. 4, 32, trav dperjv Beds wev Eurrvevboas; Plat. 
Conv. 179 B, pevos Eurrvedoar éeviors TY Apwwv Tov Oedv; Hom. JI. xx. 110; 
Od. xix. 138. The simple verb is never used of divine action. How 
much the word corresponds with the Scriptural view is evident from 
Li Peveae 2 ives 


And the commentators generally will be found to speak no 
otherwise. 

The completeness of this lexical consent has recently, how- 
ever, been broken, and that by no less an authority than Prof. 





“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 231 


Hermann Cremer himself, the second edition of whose great 
“ Biblico-theological Lexicon”? we have just adduced as in 
entire agreement with the current view. The date of issue of 
this edition, in its original German form, was 1872. The third 
edition was delayed until 1883. In the interval Dr. Cremer 
was called upon to write the article on ‘‘Inspiration”’ in the 
second edition of Herzog’s “‘ Realencyklopedie” (Vol. vi, sub 
voc., pp. 746 seg.), which saw the light in 1880. In preparing 
this article he was led to take an entirely new view ” of the 
meaning of Oedmvevotros, according to which it defines Scrip- 
ture, in II Tim. ii. 16, not according to its origin, but accord- 
ing to its effect — not as “inspired of God,”’ but as ‘inspiring 
its readers.’’ The statement of his new view was transferred 
to the third edition of his ‘‘ Lexicon” (1883; E. T. as “‘Supple- 
ment,’’ 1886) very much in the form in which it appears in 
Herzog; and it has retained its place in the “‘ Lexicon,” with 
practically no alteration, ever since.*? As its expression in 
Herzog was the earliest, and therefore is historically the most 
important, and as the article in the “ Lexicon” is easily acces- 
sible in both German and English, and moreover does not 


2 The novelty of the view in question must not be pressed beyond measure. 
It was a new view in the sense of the text, but, as we shall subsequently see, it 
was no invention of Prof. Cremer’s, but was derived by him from Ewald. 

3 That is at least to the eighth edition (1895), which is the last we have seen. 
The chief differences between the Herzog and “Lexicon”’ articles are found at 
the beginning and end — the latter being fuller at the beginning and the former 
at the end. The ‘‘ Lexicon” article opens thus: ‘‘ Qeémvevaros, -ov, gifted with God’s 
Spirit, breathing the Divine Spirit (but not, as Weiss still maintains = inspired by 
God). The term belongs only to Hellenistic and Ecclesiastical Greek, and as 
peculiar thereto is connected with expressions belonging to the sphere of heathen 
prophecy and mysteries, deoddpos, Geoddopynros, Peopopobuevos, OenAaTOS, Oeoxivntos, Heo- 
déyuwv, OeodexTwp, Oeompdb7ros, Deduavris, Oeddpwv, Oeoppabuwv, Oeoppadrys, EvOeos, EvOovota- 
orns, et al., to which Hellenistic Greek adds two new words, Oeérvevoros and 
Geodidaxros, without, however, denoting what the others do — an ecstatic state.” 
The central core of the article then runs parallel in both forms. Nothing is added 
in the “Lexicon,” except (in the later editions) immediately after the quotations 
from Nonnus this single sentence: “‘This usage in Nonnus shows just that it is not 
to be taken as = inspiratus, inspired by God but as = filled with God’s Spirit and 
therefore radiating it.”’ Then follows immediately the next sentence, precisely as 
in Herzog, with which the “ Lexicon”’ article then runs parallel to the quotation 
from Origen, immediately after which it breaks off, 


hd REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


essentially differ from what is said in Herzog, we shall quote 
here Dr. Cremer’s statement of the case in preference from 
Herzog. He says: 


“Tn theological usage, Inspiration denotes especially the influence 
of the Holy Spirit in the origination of the sacred Scriptures, by means 
of which they become the expression to us of the will of God, or the 
Word of God. The term comes from the Vulgate, which renders 
II Tim. i. 16 raca ypad Oedrvevotos, by omnis Scriptura divinitus 
inspirata. Whether the meaning of the Greek term is conveyed by 
this is at least. questionable. It clearly belongs only to Hellenistic and 
Christian Greek. The notion that it was used also in classical Greek 
of poets and seers (Huther in his Commentary) and to express what 
Cicero says in his pro Archia, p. 8, nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu 
divino unquam fut, is certainly wrong. For dedrvevoros does not occur 
at all in classical Greek or in profane Greek as a whole. In the unique 
passage, Plutarch, de placit. phil., 5, 2 (Mor. 904, 2): rovs dvetpous rovs 
Oeorvevatovs Kat’ avayKny yiveoBar’ Tovs b€ duatko’s dverdwAoToLoumErns 
Yuxis To cvudepov aitf KTX., it is very probably to be ascribed to the 
copyist, and stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures, in the place of 6eo- 
qéumtous. Besides this it occurs in Pseudo-Phocylides, v. 121: rijs 6é 
Oeorvebatou codins doyos éotly &ptaotos — unless the whole line is, with 
Bernays, to be deleted as disturbing to the sense — as well as in the 
fifth book of the ‘‘Sibyllines,”’ v. 308: Kiyun & 4 pwpa obv vapacr Tots 
Jeorvevaro.s, and v. 406, ’AdAa yEeyar yeveripa Oedv ravTwv OeorvebaTwv 
"Ev Ouoiais éyéparpoy kal ayias éxatouBas. The Pseudo-Phocylides was, 
however, a Hellenist, and the author of the fifth book of the ‘‘Sibyl- 
lines’? was, most probably, an Egyptian Jew living in the time 
of Hadrian. On Christian ground we find it in II Tim. iti. 16, which is 
possibly the earliest written employment of it to which we can point. 
Wetstein, on this passage, adduces the sentence from the Vita Sabae 
16 (in Cotelerii Monum.): épOace 7 Tod Xv xapite } TavTwr Ocorvebatuy, 
TavT@V XpLaTopopwy avTod auvodia wEXpL O dvoMaTwY, as Well as the desig- 
nation of Marcus Eremita as 6 @edrvevortos avnp. That the term has a 
passive meaning = ‘gifted with God’s Spirit,’ ‘divinely spirited,’ (not 
‘inspired’ as Ewald rightly distinguishes “) may be taken as indubi- 
table from ‘Sibyll.’, v. 406 and the two passages last adduced. Never- 


4 The contrast is between “‘géttlich begeistet’’ and ‘‘géttlich begeistert.”’ The 
reference to Ewald is given in the “Lexicon”: Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft, vii. 68. 
seq.; 1x. 91 seq. 





“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 233 


theless ypad7 Sedrvevoros does not seem easily capable of meaning 
‘inspired by God’s Spirit’ in the sense of the Vulgate; when connected 
with such conceptions as ypa¢y here, vaua, ‘fountain,’ ‘Sibyll.’ v. 308, 
it would rather signify ‘breathing a divine spirit,’ in keeping with that 
ready transition of the passive into the active sense which we see in 
amvevotos, evrvevaotos, ‘ill- or well-breathed’ = ‘breathing ill or well.’ 
Compare Nonnus, paraphr. ev Jo., 1, 102: of odds a&xpov dvdpomenv 
Tadapnv ovx aévos cil redaooas, AVoar podvoy iwavra OeoTvEevaTOLO TedidoU, 
with v. 129: Bamritew drbporor kal amvebotoict doérpos. In harmony 
with this, it might be understood also in Phocyl. 121; the explanation, 
‘Wisdom gifted with the Divine Spirit,’ at all events has in its favor 
the fact that @ed7vevoros is given the same sense as when it is connected 
with davjp, avOpwros. Certainly a transition to the sense, ‘breathed by 
God’ = ‘inspired by God’ seems difficult to account for, and it would 
fit, without forcing, only Phocyl. 121, while in II Tim. iii. 16, on the 
assumption of this sense, there would be required a not altogether 
easy metonyme. The sense ‘breathing God’s Spirit’ is moreover in 
keeping with the context, especially with the @pediwos rpds ddacKkadiav 
«7d. and the ra duvapeva ce codica, v. 15, as well as with the language 
employed elsewhere, e. g., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where what 
the Scripture says is, as is well known, spoken of as the saying, the 
word of the Holy Ghost. Cf. also Acts xxviii. 25. Origen also, in Hom. 
21 in Jerem., seems so to understand it: sacra volumina Spiritus pleni- 
tudinem spirant. Let it be added that the expression ‘breathed by God, 
inspired by God,’ though an outgrowth of the Biblical idea, certainly, 
so far as it is referred to the prophecy which does not arise out of the 
human will (II Pet. i. 21), yet can scarcely be applied to the whole of 
the rest of the sacred Scriptures — unless we are to find in II Tim. 
iil. 16 the expression of a conception of sacred Scripture similar to the 
Philonian. There is no doubt, however, that the Peshito understood 
it simply = ‘inspired by God’ — yet not differently than as in Matt. 
xxii. 43 we find: Aavié &v mvebware Aadet. It translates SM733 12 3N> 23 
snansx, ‘for every Scripture which is written év rvedyarc’ — certainly 
keeping prominently in the foreground the inspiration of the writer. 
Similarly the Afthiopic renders: ‘And every Scripture is in the (by 
the) Spirit of the Lord and profits’; while the Arabic (deriving from 
the original text) reads: ‘And every Scripture which is divinely of 
spiratio, divinam sapiens auram.’ The rendering of the Peshito and 
the explanations of the Greek exegetes would certainly lend great 
weight to the divinitus inspirata, were not they explicable from the 


234 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


dominant idea of the time — for which, it was thought, a suitable 
term was found in II Tim. i. 16, nowhere else used indeed and coined 
for the purpose — but which was itself more or less taken over from 
the Alexandrian Judaism, that is to say, from heathenism.”’ 


Here, we will perceive, is a carefully reasoned attempt to 
reverse the previous lexical consensus as to the meaning of 
this important word. We have not observed many traces of 
the influence of this new determination of its import. The 
present writer, after going over the ground under Prof. Cremer’s 
guidance, too hastily adopted his conclusion in a paper on 
‘‘Paul’s Doctrine of the Old Testament” published in The 
Presbyterian Quarterly for July, 1899; and an adverse criti- 
cism of Dr. Cremer’s reasoning, from the pen of Prof. Dr. L. 
Schulze, of Rostock, appeared in the Theologisches Literatur- 
blaté for May 22, 1896 (xvi, 21, pp. 253, 254), in the course 
of a review of the eighth edition of the “ Lexicon.” But there 
has not met our eye as yet any really thorough reéxamination 
of the whole matter, such as a restatement of it lke Dr. 
Cremer’s might have been expected to provoke. The case 
surely warrants and indeed demands it. Dr. Cremer’s state- 
ment is more than a statement — it is an argument; and his 
conclusion is revolutionary, not indeed as to doctrine — for 
that rests on a broader basis than a single text or an isolated 
word — but as to the meaning borne by an outstanding New 
Testament term. It would seem that there is, then, no apol- 
ogy needed for undertaking a somewhat minute examination 
of the facts in the case under the guidance of Dr. Cremer’s 
very full and well-reasoned statement. 


It may conduce, in the end, to clearness of presentation 
if we begin somewhat in medias res by raising the question 
of the width of the usage of the word. Is it broadly a Greek 
word, or distinctively a Hellenistic word, or even a purely 
Christian word? . 

So far as appears from the usage as ascertained,’ it would 


> Of which the facts given by Cremer may for the present be taken as a fair 
conspectus, only adding that the word occurs not only in the editions of Plutarch, 





“ GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 239 


seem to be post-Christian. Whether we should also call it 
Christian, coined possibly by Paul and used only in Christian 
circles, depends, in the present state of our knowledge, on the 
determination of two rather nice questions. One of these con- 
cerns the genuineness of the reading Oeorvetarous in the tract 
on “The Opinions of Philosophers” (v, 2, 3), which has come 
down to us among the works of Plutarch, as well as in its 
dependent document, the‘ History of Philosophy ”’ (106), trans- 
mitted among the works of Galen. The other concerns the 
character, whether Jewish or Jewish-Christian, of certain 
portions of the fifth book of the “Sibylline Oracles” and of the 
“Poem of Admonition,” once attributed to Phocylides but 
now long recognized to be the work of a late Alexandrian Jew,° 
— in both of which the word occurs. Dr. Cremer considers the 
reading to be falsein the Plutarchian tract, and thinks the fifth 
book of the “Sybillines’’ and the Pseudo-Phocylidian poem 
Jewish in origin. He therefore pronounces the word a Hellen- 
istic one. These decisions, however, can scarcely be looked 
upon as certain; and they will bear scrutiny, especially as they 
are accompanied with some incidental errors of statement. _ 

It would certainly require considerable boldness to decide 
with confidence upon the authorship of any given portion of 
the fifth book of the “ Sibyllines.” Friedlieb (whom Dr. Cremer 
follows) and Badt ascribe the whole book to a Jewish, but 
Alexandre, Reuss and Dechent to a Christian author; while 
others parcel it out variously between the two classes of 
sources — the most assigning the sections containing the 
word in question, however, to a Jewish author (Bleck, Liicke, 
Gfrorrer; Ewald, Hilgenfeld; Schiirer). Schiirer practically 
gives up in despair the problem of distributing the book to 
its several authors, and contents himself with saying that 
Jewish pieces preponderate and run in date from the first 
Christian century to Hadrian.’ In these circumstances surely 


“De plac. phil.,” v. 2, 3, but also in the printed text of the dependent document 
printed among Galen’s works under the title of ‘De hist. phil.,” 106. 
® Cf. Mahaffy, “History of Greek Literature” (American ed.), 1. 188, note 1. 
7 “The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ,” E. T., I, 1. 286, whence 
the account given in the text is derived. 


236 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


a certain amount of doubt may fairly be thought to rest on 
the Jewish or Christian origin of our word in the Sibylline 
text. On the other hand, there seems to be pretty good posi- 
tive reason for supposing the Pseudo-Phocylidian poem to 
be in its entirety a Christian production. Its Jewish origin 
was still strenuously maintained by Bernays,® but its relation 
to the ‘‘ Teaching of the Apostles” has caused the subject to be 
reopened, and we think has brought it to at least a probable 
settlement in favor of Scaliger’s opinion that it is the work 
‘‘avwvbpou Christiani.”’? In the face of this probability the 
brilliant and attractive, but not always entirely convincing 
conjectures by which Bernays removed some of the Christian 
traits from the text may now be neglected: and among them 
that by which he discarded the line containing our word. So 
far then as its occurrence in the fifth book of the “ Sibyllines”’ 
and in Pseudo-Phocylides is concerned, no compelling reason 
appears why the word may not be considered a distinctively 
Christian one: though it must at the same time be recognized 
that the sectionsin the fifth “Sibyl” in which it occurs are 
more probably Jewish than Christian. 

With reference to the Plutarchian passage something 
more needs to be said. ‘‘In the unique passage, Plutarch de 
plac. phil. 5, 2 (904 F.): trav dvetpwv robs wév Oeorvelbatous Kat’ 
avaykny yweo8ar’ Tovs 6€ duatkots dveldwdAorrovoupevns WuxXs TO 
ouudepov avTy KTd.”’ says Dr. Cremer, ‘‘it is with the greatest 
probability to be ascribed to the transcriber, in whose mind 
Gedrvevaros lay in the sense of the Vulgate rendering, divinitus 
unspirata, and it stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures, for 
Geonéurrous.”’ The remark concerning Wyttenbach is errone- 
ous — only one of a series of odd misstatements which have 
dogged the textual notes on this passage. Wyttenbach prints 
deomvevoTous in his text and accompanies it with this textual 

§ See his ““Gesammelte Abhandlungen,” edited by Usener in 1885. Usener’s 
Preface should be also consulted. 

* So Harnack, ‘Theologische Literaturzeitung,” 1885, No. 7, p. 160: also, J. 
R. Harris, “‘ The Teaching of the Apostles and the Sibylline Books” (Cambridge, 


1888): both give internal evidences of the Christian origin of the book. Cf. what 
we have said in The Andover Review for August, 1886, p. 219. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 237 


note: '° ‘‘deoréumrous reposuit editor Lips. ut ex Gal. et Mosc. 
At in neutro haec reperio. Sane non est quare compilatori ele- 
gantias obtrudamus.” Oeoméurrovs is therefore not Wytten- 
bach’s conjecture: Wyttenbach does not even accept it, and 
this has of late been made a reproach to him: " he ascribes 
it to “‘the Leipzig editor,” that is to Christian Daniel Beck, 
whose edition of this tract was published at Leipzig, in 1787. 
But Wyttenbach even more gravely misquotes Beck than he 
has himself been misquoted by Dr. Cremer. For Beck, who 
prints in his text: trav dvetowy rots ev OeorvevoTrous, annotates 
as follows: ‘“‘Olim: robs dveipous tots Peomvebatous — Reddidr 
textis elegantiorem lectionem, quae in M. et G. est. Qeorvebatous 
sapere Christianum librarvum videtur pro Beoréurrous.”’ * That 
is to say, Wyttenbach has transferred Beck’s note on Ta@v 
dvelpwy Tovs pev to OeorwéurTovs. It is this clause and not @eo- 
meuntous that Beck professes to have got out of the Moscow 
MS. and Galen: @eoréurrouvs he presents merely as a pure 
conjecture founded on the one consideration that eorvetc- 
tous has a flavor of Christian scribe about it; and he does not 
venture to put Oeoréurrous into the text. The odd thing is 
that Hutten follows Wyttenbach in his misrepresentation of 
Beck, writing in his note: ‘‘ Beck. dedit Oeoméumrovus ut elegan- 
tiorem lectionem e Mosq. et Gal. sumptam. In neutro se hoc 
reperisse W. notat, addens, non esse quare compilatori ele- 
gantias obtrudamus. Cors. e Gal. notat 7@v dveipwr rods pev 
Geomvevarous.’’ * Corsini does indeed so report, his note run- 
ning: ‘‘Paullo aliter’’ (i. e., from the ordinary text which he 
reprints from Stephens) ‘‘Galenus, 7@yv dveipwv tovs wey Oeo- 
mvevoTous, Somniorum ea quidem quae divinitus inspirata sint, 
etc.” “ But this is exactly what Beck says, and nothing other, 


10 Oxford 8vo edition, 1795-1830, Vol. tv, 11. 650. 

1 As by Diels in his ‘‘ Doxographi Graci,” p. 15: “‘fuat scilicet Oeoréurrous, quod 
sero intellectum est a Wyttenbachio in indice Plutarcheo. st Galenum inspexissit, 
ipsum illud Oeoréurrovs inventurus erat.” But Diels’ presentation of Galen was 
scarcely open to Wyttenbach’s inspection: and the editions then extant read 
Georveborouvs as Corsini rightly tells us. 

12 “Plutarchi de Physicis Philosophorum Decretis,’”’ ed. Chr. Dan. Beckius, 
Leipzig, 1787. 13 Tiibingen, 1791-1804, Vol. XII (1800), p. 467. 

14 *‘Plutarchi de Placitis Philosophorum Libb. v.”’ (Florentiz, 1750). 


238 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


except that he adds that this form is also found in the 
Moscow MS. We must conclude that Hutten in looking at 
Beck’s note was preoccupied with Wyttenbach’s misreport 
of it. The upshot of the whole matter is that the reading 
deoréumtous was merely a conjecture of Beck’s, founded solely 
on his notion that deorveborous was a purely Christian term, 
and possessing no diplomatic basis whatsoever. Accordingly 
it has not found its way into the printed text of Plutarch: all 
editions, with one exception, down to and including those of 
Diibner-Dohner (Didot’s “ Bibliotheca’’) of 1856 and Bernar- 
dakis (Teubner’s series) of 1893 read Oeorvetvorous. 

A new face has been put on the matter, however, by the 
publication in 1879 of Diels’ ““ Doxographi Greci,”’ in which the 
whole class of ancient literature to which Plutarch’s“ De plac. 
philos.”’ belongs is subjected to a searching study, with a view 
to tracing the mutual relations of the several pieces and the 
sources from which they are constructed.’®? With this excur- 
sion into “‘higher criticism,’’ into which there enters a highly 
speculative element, that, despite the scientific thoroughness 
and admirable acuteness which give the whole an unusually 
attractive aspect, leaves some doubts in the mind of the sober 
reader,’ we have now happily little to do. Suffice it to say 
that Diels looks upon the Plutarchian tract as an epitome of 
a hypothetical Aétios, made about 150 A.D. and already used 
by Athenagoras (c. 177 A.D.): and on the Galenic tract as 
in its later portion an excerpt from the Plutarchian tract, 
made about A.D. 500.** In the course of his work, he has 


145 A very clear account of Diels’ main conclusions is given by Franz Susemihl 
in his ‘‘Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur in der Alexandrinerzeit”’ (Leipzig, 
1891-1892), il. pp. 250, 251, as well as in Bursian’s Jahresbericht for 1881 (VII, 
i. 289 seg.). A somewhat less flattering notice by Max Heinze appears in Bursian 
for 1880, p. 3 seg. Cf. Gerke, sub voc. ‘ Aétios,” in the new edition of Pauly’s 
“‘Real-Encyclopeedie”’ (Wissowa’s ed., 1894), I, i. 705 a. 

16 Cf. the remarks of Max Heinze as above. 

17 Tt would be possible to hold, of course, that Athenagoras used not the 
[Pseudo?-] Plutarch, but the hypothetical Aétios, of which Diels considers the 
former an excerpt: but Diels does not himself so judge: ‘‘anceps est quzestio utrum 
excerpserit Athenagoras Plutarchi Placita an maius illud opus, cuius illa est 
epitome. illud mihi probatur, hoc R. Volkmanno ‘Leben Plut.,’ i. 169. . . .”’ (p. 51). 

18 The relation of the Pseudo-Galen to the [Pseudo?-] Plutarch Diels ex- 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 239 


framed and printed a careful recension of the text of both 
tracts,’ and in both of them he reads at the place of interest 
to us, Georéumrrous.” Here for the first (and as yet only 7) 
time Georéurrouvs makes its appearance in the text of what we 
may, in deference to Diels’ findings and after the example of 
Gerke,” call, at least, the ‘‘[ Pseudo?-] Plutarch.’’? The key 
to the situation, with Diels, lies in the reading of the Pseudo- 
Galen: for as an excerpt from the [ Pseudo?-] Plutarch the 
Pseudo-Galen becomes a valuable witness to its text, and is 
treated in this case indeed as a determinative witness, inas- 
much as the whole MS. transmission of [| Pseudo?- | Plutarch, 
so far as known, reads here @eorvetarous. Editing Qeoréurrous 
in Pseudo-Galen, Diels edits it also, on that sole documentary 
ground, in [ Pseudo?-] Plutarch. That we may form some 
estimate of the likelihood of the new reading, we must, there- 
fore, form some estimate of its likelihood in the text of the 
Pseudo-Galen, as well as of the principles on which the text 


of the [ Pseudo?- | Plutarch is to be framed. 
Theeditions of Pseudo-Galen — including that of Kihn**— 


presses thus: ‘‘ Alter liber quo duce ex generali physicorum tanquam promulside 
ad largiorem dapam Galenus traducit est ‘Plutarchus de Placidis philosophorum 
physicis.’ Unde cum in prioribus pauca suspensa manu ut condimentum adspersa 
sint (c. 5, 20, 21), jam ac. 25 ad finem Plutarchus ita regnat, nihil aliud ut preterea 
adscitum esse appareat ... ergo fcedioribus Byzantiorum soloecismis amputatis 
hanc partem ad codicum fidem descripsimus, non nullis Plutarcheze emendationis 
auxilium, pluribus fortasse human perversitatis insigne testimonium”’ (pp. 252, 
253). 19 Plutarch’s, pp. 267 seq.; Galen’s, pp. 595 seq. 

20 Plutarch’s ‘‘Ep.,” v. 2, 3 (p. 416); Galen’s ‘‘ Hist. Phil.,” 106 (p. 640). 

21 For Bernardakis reads @eorvebarous in his text (Teubner series, Plutarch’s 
““Moralia,” v. 351), recognizing at the same time in a note that the reading of 
Galen is Oeoréurrous. 

22 In Pauly’s “‘Real-Encyclopedie,”’ new ed., s. v. 

23 It is not meant, of course, that Diels was the first to deny the tract to 
Plutarch. It has always been under suspicion. Wyttenbach, for example, rejects 
its Plutarchian claim with decision, and speaks of the tract in a tone of studied 
contempt, which is, indeed, reflected in the note already quoted from him, in the 
remark that we would not be justified in obtruding elegancies on a mere compiler. 
Cf. i. p. xli: “Porro, si quid hoc est, spurius liber utriusque nomine perperam 
fertur idem, Plutarchi qui dicitur De Philosophorum Placitis, Galeni Historia 
philosophie.”’ 

24 Diels does not think highly of this portion of Kiihn’s edition: ‘‘ Kuehnius, 
qui prioribus sui corporis voluminibus manum subinde admovit quamvis parum 


240 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


have hitherto read Oeorvévarous at our place, and from this we 
may possibly infer, that this is the reading of the common 
run of the MSS.” Diels constructs his text for this portion of 
the treatise from two kindred MSS. only, and records the 
readings of no others: as no variation is given upon our word, 
we may infer that these two MSS. at least agree in reading 
deonéurrrous. The former of them (Codex Laurentianus lxxiv, 
3), of the twelfth or early thirteenth century, is described as 
transcribed ‘‘ with incredible corruptness”’; the latter (Codex 
Laurentianus lvili, 2), of the fifteenth century, as written 
more carefully: both represent a common very corrupt arche- 
type.” This archetype is reconstructed from the consent of 
the two, and where they differ the preference is given to the 
former. The text thus framed is confessedly corrupt: ”’ but 
though it must therefore be cautiously used, Diels considers 
it nevertheless a treasure house of the best readings for the 
[ Pseudo?-] Plutarch.* Especially in the latter part of the 
| Pseudo?-] Plutarch, where the help of Eusebius and the 
other ecloge fails, he thinks the case would often be desperate 
if we did not have the Pseudo-Galen. Three examples of the 
preservation of the right reading by it alone he gives us, one 
of them being our present passage, in which he follows, there- 
fore, the reading of the Pseudo-Galen against the entire MS. 
transmission. 

Diels considers the whole MS. transmission of the 
[Pseudo?-] Plutarch to take us back to an archetype of 


felicem, postremo urgenti typothetz ne inspectas quidem Charterianz plagulas 
typis discribendas tradidisse fertur. neque aliter explicari potest, quod editio 
ambitiose suscepta tam misere absoluta est”’ (p. 241, 2). 

2° Though Diels informs us that the editors have made very little effort to 
ascertain the readings of the MSS. 

6 “Ex archetypo haud vetusto eodemque mendosissimo quattuor exempla 
transcripta esse, ac fidelius quidem Laur. A, peritius sed interpolate Laur. B.” 
(p. 241). 

*7 Diels’ language is: ‘“dolendum sane est libri condicionem tam esse despera- 
tam ut etiam Plutarcheo archetypo comparato haud semel plane incertus hereas, 
quid sibi velit compilator” (p. 12). 

*8 “ Verum quamvis sit summa opus cautione ne ventosi nebulonis commenta 
pro sincera memoria amplexemur, inest tamen in Galeno optimarum lectionum 
peene intactus thesaurus” (p. 13). 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 241 


about A.D. 1000, and selects from it three codices as nearest 
to the archetype,” viz., A = Codex Mosquensis 339 (nunc 352) 
of saec. xi. or xii. (the same as the Mosq. quoted by Beck), 
collated by Matthaei and in places reéxamined for Diels by 
Voelkelius; B = Codex Marcianus 521 [xcii, 7], of saec. xiv, 
very closely related to A, collated by Diels himself; and C = 
Codex Parisinus 1672 of saec. xiii. ex. vel. xiv. in which is a 
copy of a corpus of Plutarch put together by Planudes or 
a contemporary. Through these three codices he reaches the 
original apograph which stands at the root of all the extant 
MSS., and from it, by the aid of the excerpts from the tract 
— in our passage the Pseudo-Galen’s only — he attains his 
text. 

His note on our reading runs thus: ‘‘@eoréumrous G cf. 
Arist. de divinat. 2 p. 463b 13: @eomvebatous (A) B C, cf. Proll. 
p. 15.” The parenthesis in which A is enclosed means that 
A is here cited from the silence of Matthaei’s collation. The 
reference to the Prolegomena is to the passage already al- 
luded to, in which the Galenic reading Oeoréurrovs is cited as 
one of three chosen instances of excellent readings preserved 
by Galen alone. The note there runs thus: ‘‘alteri loco chris- 
tiani librarii pius fraus nocuit. V. 2, 3, ‘Hpddidos tay dvetpwr 
Tous wep ODeomvEvGaTOUS Kat avaykny yiveBar. fuit scilicet 
deoréurrouvs, quod sero intellectum est a Wyttenbachio in in- 
dice Plutarcheo. si Galenum inspexisset, ipsum illud Oeoréy- 
mTous inventurus erat. simili fraude versus 121 Phocylideis 
a Byzantinis insertus est, ubi vox illa sacra [II Tim. iii. 16 | 
I. Bernaysio interpolationis originem manifesto aperuit.’’ 


29 “Codices manu scripti quotquot noti sunt ex archetypo circa millesimum 
annum scripto deducti sunt” (p. 33). “duo autem sunt recensendi Plutarchi 


instrumenta ... unum recentius ex codicis petendum, inter quos A B C arche- 
typo proximos ex ceterorum turba segregavi...alterum genus est excerpto- 
Ure Di 42). 


30 The readings of A are drawn from a collation of it with the Frankfort 
edition of 1620 published by C. F. Matthzi in his ‘‘ Lectiones Mosquenses.”’ In a 
number of important readings, the MS. has been reinspected for Diels by Voelkel 
with the result of throwing some doubt on the completeness of Matthei’s collation. 
Accordingly the MS. is cited in parenthesis whenever it is cited e silentio (see 
Diels, p. 33). 


242 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


That is to say, the reading of the Pseudo-Galen is preferred 
to that of the MSS., because the reading deorvebarous explains 
itself as a pious fraud of a Christian scribe, giving a place in 
the text of Plutarch to “‘this sacred word’’ — another ex- 
ample of which procedure is to be found in Pseudo-Phoe. 121, 
extruded by Bernays from the text on this very ground. On 
this remark, as on a hinge, turns, it would seem, the decision 
of the whole question. The problem of the reading, indeed, 
may be set forth at this point in the form of this alternative: 
— Which is most likely, — that deorvebarous in the [ Pseudo?- | 
Plutarch originated in the pious fraud of a Christian scribe? 
— or that deoréumrovs in the text of Pseudo-Galen edited by 
Diels originated in the error of a careless scribe? 

When we posit the problem in this definite form we can- 
not feel at all certain that Diels’ solution is the right one. 
There is an @ priort unlikelihood in its way: deliberate cor- 
ruption of texts is relatively rare and not to be assumed 
without good reason. The parallel from the Pseudo-Phocy- 
lides fails, now that it seems probable that the whole poem 
is of Christian origin. There seems no motive for such a pious 
fraud as is charged: what gain could be had from intruding 
Geomvebatous into the Plutarchian text? and what special 
sanctity attached to this word? And if a sacrosanct charac- 
ter be attributed to the word, could it not be equally plausi- 
bly argued that it was therefore offensive to the Christian 
consciousness in this heathen connection, and was accord- 
ingly replaced by the less sacred 6eoréumrous, a word of heathen 
associations and indeed with a secondary sense not far from 
“extraordinary.” * Or if it be now said that it is not intended 
to charge conscious fraud, it is pertinent to ask what special 
associations Christians had with the word @eémvevaros in con- 
nection with dreams which would cause it to obtrude itself 

1 The general use of @ed7eurros is illustrated in the Lexicons, by the citation 
of Arist., ‘‘ Ethic. Nic.,” i. 9, 3, where happiness is spoken of as Oe6reua70s in con- 
trast to the attainment of virtue in effort; Longinus, c. 34, where we read of 
OedmeuTTa Tia Swpjnuara in contrast with a4vOpHmwa; Themist, oP Or2ts18 in. A 7eiie 


where 6 9, veavios is found; Dion. Hal., T. 14. Liddell and Scott quote for the 
secondary sense of ‘‘extraordinary,”’ Longus, 3, 18; Artem., i. 7. 


“ GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 243 


unconsciously in such a connection. One is almost equally at 
a loss to account for the intrusion of the word in the place 
of the simpler @cé7eurros, whether the intrusion be looked 
upon as deliberate or unconscious. On the other hand, the sub- 
stitution of Oed7eumros for bedrvevoTos in the text of Pseudo- 
Galen seems quite readily accountable, and that whether it 
be attributed to the original excerpter or to some later copy- 
ist of the tract. The term was associated with dreams in the 
minds of all acquainted with, the literature of the subject. 
Diels himself refers us to a passage in Aristotle where the 
collocation occurs,” and familiar passages from Philo * and 
the “Clementina’’*‘ will suggest themselves to others. ‘‘God- 
sent dreams’’ must have almost had the rank of a ‘‘ terminus 
technicus.’’ * Moreover the scribe had just written the word 


8 Arist., de dtvinat, 2 p. 463° 13: ddws Sérel kai Trav &drAwY Chwy dverpwrrer TWA, 
OcdmeuTTTAa péev ovK av ein Ta &irvia, ovbe yeyove TOUTOV Xap, Satwovia WEVTOL: % Yap 
bots Satuovia, add’ od Gela. 

33 Cf. Philo’s tract wepi rod Oeoméurrous eivar rods dvetpovs (Mangey., 1. 620). 
Its opening words run (Yonge’s translation, 11. 292): ‘‘The treatise before this 
one has contained our opinions as to those of ré&v déveipwy Oeoméurrwv classed in 
the first species ... which are defined as dreams in which the Deity sends the 
appearances beheld in dreams according to his own suggestion (ré Oeiov kara Thy 
idiay broBoNns Tas é&v Tots Urvos émiTeuTELY haytacias),’ whereas this later treatise 
is to discuss the second species of dreams, in which, “our mind being moved 
along with that of the universe, has seemed to be hurried away from itself and to 
be God-borne (Geodopetabar) so as to be capable of preapprehension and fore- 
knowledge of the future.”’ Cf. also § 22, ris Oeoméurrov davracias: § 33, Oeoréurrous 
éveipous: 11. § 1, T&v OcoméuTTwv dveipwv. The superficial parallelism of Philo with 
what is cited from Herophilus is close enough fully to account for a scribe harking 
back to Philo’s language — or even for the compiler of the Pseudo-Galen doing so. 

‘34 “Clementine Homilies,” xvii. 15: “And Simon said: ‘If you maintain that 
apparitions do not always reveal the truth, yet for all that visions and dreams, 
being God-sent (ra dpauara kal Ta &iTMa OedreuTTA SvTa ob Webderar) do not speak 
falsely in regard to those matters which they wish to tell.’ And Peter said: ‘You 
were right in saying that, being God-sent, they do not speak falsely (Gedreurra 
ovra ov Webderac. But it is uncertain if he who sees has seen a God-sent dream (ei 6 
ida Oedreurrov éwpaxev Sverpov).’’ What has come to the ‘‘Clementine Homilies” is 
surely already a Christian commonplace. 

% The immediately preceding paragraph in the Pseudo-Galen (§ 105), corre- 
sponding with [Pseudo?-] Plutarch, v. i. 1, 2.3 is edited by Diels thus: MAdarwv 
Kal of Zrarkol THY mavTiKnY elaayouvot Kai yap OedmEeuTTOV Elval, Step EoTiv évOEacTLKOV 
Kal Kata TO Decdratoyv THs Wuxs, Step éoTiv &OovaracTiKdv, Kal TO dve_poTUALKOY Kal TO 
d&aoTpovouKov Kal TO OpveocKoTLKOv. Revoparns Kat ’Emixovpos avaipodor Ti wavriKyy. 


244 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


in the immediate context, and that not without close con- 
tiguity with the word dveipous,*® and may be readily supposed 
to have had it still lingering in his memory when he came to 
write the succeeding section. In fine, the intrusion into the 
text of Qeomvebarous, a rare word and one suggested to a dull 
or inattentive scribe by nothing, seems far less easy to ac- 
count for than the intrusion of #eoréumrous, a common word, 
an ordinary term in this connection, and a term suggested 
to the scribe by the immediate context. On transcriptional 
grounds certainly the former appears far more likely to be 
original — ‘‘proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua.”’ 

The decisive consideration against QOeorvevorovs in the 
mind of Diels — as it had been before him in the mind of 
Beck — seems to have been, indeed, nothing but the assump- 
tion that @edmvevaoros, as a distinctively Christian word, must 
argue a Christian hand, wherever it is found. That, however, 
in our present study is precisely the matter under investi- 
gation; and we must specially guard against permitting to 
intrude decisively into our premises what we propose to 
arrive at only by way of conclusion. Whether the word be 
genuine in the [| Pseudo?- | Plutarch or not, is just one of the 
most important factors in deciding whether it be a peculiarly 
Christian word or not. An instructive parallel may be found 
in the treatment accorded by some great authorities to the 
cognate word @edrvoos when it turned up in an inscription 
which seems obviously heathen.*” This inscription, inscribed 
(about the third century) on the face of a man-headed sphinx 
at Memphis, sings the praises of the sphinx’s beauty— 


IlvOaydpas 6€ udvoy 76 Outikoyv ovk eyxpiver. ’Apiororédns Kat Arxalapxos rods dvelpous 
elaayovow, abavatov yey THY Yux Hv ov vouifovres, Oeiov 5é Twos merexev. Surely the scribe 
or compiler who could transmute the section zept ywavrixfs in the [Pseudo?-]} 
Plutarch into this, with its intruded 6eé7eurrov before him and its allusion to 
Aristotle on dreams, might be credited without much rashness with the intrusion 
of Georéurrovs into the next section. 

86 Cf. in general E. Thrimer. Hastings ERE, VI, p. 542. 

37 It is duly recorded in Boeckh, ‘‘Corpus Inscript. Graec,’”’ 4700 b. (Add. iii). 
It is also printed by Kaibel, ‘‘Epigrammata Greca” (Berlin, 1878), p. 428, but 
not as a Christian inscription, but under the head of ‘‘Epigrammata dedicatoria: 
V. proscynemata.”’ 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 245 


among the items mentioned being that édizep[ 6 le tpdcwmov 
éxet 70 O € |6[ wv jour, while, below, the body is that of the lion, 
king of beasts. Boeckh comments on this: ‘‘ Vs. 4, 5, recte legit 
Letronnius, qui #ed7voov monet Christianum quidam sonare.”’ 
But why should Letronnius infer Christianity from the word 
deorrvoov, or Boeckh think it worth while to record the fact? 
Fortunately the heathen use of @ed7voos is beyond question.” 
It provides an excellent illustration, therefore, of the rash- 
ness of pronouncing words of this kind to be of Christian 
origin; and suggests the hesitancy with which we should ex- 
trude such a word from the text of [ Pseudo?-] Plutarch on 
the sole ground that it ‘‘tastes of a Christian scribe.”’ Surely 
if a heathen could invent and use the one word, he might 
equally well invent and use the other. And certainly it is a 
great mistake to look upon compounds with 6éos of this kind 
as in any sense exclusively Christian. The long list of heathen 
terms of this character given by Dr. Cremer, indeed, is itself 
enough to indicate the heathen facility for their coinage. 
Many such words, we may well believe, were found by 
Christians ready made to their hand, and had only to be 
adapted to their richer usage. What is more distinctively 
Christian is the parallel lst of words compounded with 
mvevua * or even xpiotds *° which were placed by their side, 


38 Porphyry: ‘‘Ant. Nymph.,” 116: jyotvro yap mpooifavew 7@ bate Tas Wuxas 
Peorrvéw bvTt, as pnow 6 Novynvios: dca TodTO Aé€ywr Kal Tov TpoPHATny eipnkevar, éuheperGar 
érdvo Tod tdaTos Geod mvefua — a passage remarkable for containing an appeal to 
Moses (Gen. i. 5) by a heathen sage. ‘‘God-breathed water” is rendered by Hol- 
stenius: ‘“‘aquse que divino spiritu foveretur”’; by Gesnerus: “‘aque divinitus 
afflate”’; by Thomas Taylor: ‘‘water which is inspired by divinity.” Pisid. 
““Hexeem.,”’ 1489:  Oedrvovs axpdrns (quoted unverified from Hase-Dindorf’s 
Stephens). The Christian usage is illustrated by the following citations, taken 
from Sophocles: Hermes Tris., ‘‘Poem,” 17. 14: vfs &\ndeias; Anastasius of Sinai, 
Migne, 89. 1169 A: Those who do not have the love of God, “‘these, having a 
diabolical will and doing the desires of their flesh, rapacrodvra: &s movnpdv 76 be6- 
povov, Kal OedxTLoTOV, Kai Feduotov THs voepas Kal DeoxapaKtov nuay YuxX As Opodoyety év 
Xpist@, kal ri (worordy abris kal cvorarixiy Oedrvouv evépyeray.”’ 

39 rpevpwatopopos and mrevyatrodopetcbat are pre-Christian Jewish words, already 
used in the LX X. (Hos. ix. 7, Zeph. iii. 4, Jer. ii. 24). Compounds of 6eés found in 
the LXX. are Oeéxriaros, I] Mace. vi. 23; Oecouaxetv, II Mace. vil. 19 [@eouwaxos Sm., 
Job xxvi. 5, et al.]; QeocéBaca, Gen. xx. 11 et al.; OeooeByjs Ex. xviil. 21 et al. 

40 No derivative of xpicrés except xpioriaves is found in the New Testament. 


246 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


such as [mvevyarckds |, mvevpwatokiyntos, mvevwatopopos, mvEv- 
Mareupopos; XplaToypados, xpLaTodldaKkTos, XpiaToKivynTos, XpLo- 
TOANTTOS, XpLaTopopos. 

As the reasons which have been determining with Diels 
in framing his text do not appear to us able to bear the weight 
laid on them, we naturally cannot adopt his text with any 
confidence. We doubt whether Oeoréumrous was the original 
reading in the Pseudo-Galen; we doubt whether, if that were 
the case, we should on that ground edit it in the [| Pseudo?- |] 
Plutarch. Our feeling is decided that the intrusion of Oeoréu- 
mrTous into a text which originally read Oeorvetarouvs would be 
far more easily accounted for than the reverse. One should 
be slow, of course, in rejecting a reading commended by such 
a scholarly tact as Diels’. But we may take courage from the 
fact that Bernardakis, with Diels’ text before him, continues 
to read Oeomvetotovs even though recognizing OeoréurTous as 
the reading of Galen. We think we must be permitted to 
hold the matter still at least sub judice and to profess our 
inability in the circumstances to look upon the word as a 
purely Christian term.*! It would be interesting to know what 
phraseology was used by Herophilus himself (born ec. B.C. 
300) in the passage which the [ Pseudo?- | Plutarch excerpts. 
But this excerpt seems to be the only source of information 
we have in the matter,” and it would perhaps be overbold 


The compounds are purely Patristic. See Lightfoot’s note on Ignatius, Eph. ix; 
Phil. viii and the note in Migne’s “Pat. Grec.,”’ xi. 1861, at Adamantii ‘‘ Dialogus 
de recta fide,” § 5. 

41 In the Hase-Dindorf Stephens, sub-voc. 6edmvevaros, the passage, from the 
[Pseudo?-] Plutarch is given within square brackets in this form: [‘‘Plut. Mor. 
p. 904F: rods dveipous Tovs Peordotrous |.’” What is to be made of this new reading, 
we do not know. One wonders whether it is a new conjecture or a misprint. No 
earlier reference is given for #ed7)ouros in the ‘“‘ Thesaurus”’ than Chrysostom: ‘‘Ita 
Jobum appellat Jo. Chrystom, Vol. iv, p. 297, Suicer.”’ Sophocles cites also Anast. 
Sinai. for the word: Hexawmeron XII ad fin. (Migne, 1076 D., Vol. 89): dws robro 
kataBadov & rats Puxals TpaTEeficav chv appwv ce bu’ ab’r&v rHv OedmovtoOv Katam\ov- 
TNOO. 

42 So it may be confidently inferred from the summary of what we know of 
Herophilus given in Susemihl’s ‘‘ Geschichte der Griechisch. Literatur in d. Alex- 
andrinerzeit,” Vol. i, p. 792, or from Marx’s “ De Herophili . . . vita scriptis atque 
in medicina mentis”’ (G6ttingen, 1840), p. 38. In both cases Herophilus’ doctrine 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 247 


to suppose that the compiler had preserved the very words 
of the great physician. Were such a presumption deemed 
plausible we should be forced to carry back the first known 
use of the word 6edrvevoTos to the third century before Christ, 
but not to a provenance other than that Alexandria where its 
earliest use is otherwise traceable. Perhaps if we cannot call 
it a purely Christian term nor yet, with Dr. Cremer, an ex- 
clusively Hellenistic one, we may venture to think of it, 
provisionally at least, as belonging to Alexandrian Greek. 
Whether we should also say to late Alexandrian usage will 
possibly depend on the degree of likelihood we ascribe to its 
representing in the text of the [| Pseudo?- | Plutarch an actual 
usage of Herophilus. 

Our interest in determining the reading in the[ Pseudo?- | 
Plutarch culminates, of course, in its bearing on the meaning 
of #ed7vevotos. Prof. Schulze’s remark “ that no copyist would 
have substituted @edmvevatos here for Oed7eumros if linguistic 
usage had attached an active sense to the former, is no doubt 
quite just. This is admitted, indeed, by Dr. Cremer, who 
considers that the scribe to whom the substitution is thought 
to be due ‘‘had @eorvevaoros in his mind in the sense of the 
Vulgate rendering, divinitus inspirata”’; and only seeks to 
break the force of this admission by urging that the constant 
exegetical tradition which assigned this meaning to @eoz- 
vevoTos, rests on a misunderstanding of the word and reads 
into it a sense derived from Alexandrian-Jewish conceptions 
of inspiration. This appeal from a fixed later to an assumed 
original sense of the word possesses force, no doubt, only in 
case that traces of such an assumed original sense can be 
adduced; and meanwhile the presence of Sedmvevoros as a 
synonym of OedreurTos, even in the vocabulary of somewhat 
late scribes, must rank as one item in the evidence by which 
its meaning is to be ascertained. The whole face of the matter 
is changed, however, if @e6mvevaros be allowed to be probably 


of dreams is gathered solely from our excerpts — in the case of Susemihl from 
“‘Aétius”’ and in the case of Marx primarily from Galen with the support of 
Plutarch. 48° Loc. cit: 


248 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


or even possibly genuine in the [ Pseudo?-]| Plutarch. In that 
case it could scarcely be thought to reflect the later Christian 
conception of inspiration, imposed on Paul’s term by thinkers 
affected by Philo’s doctrine of Scripture, but would stand as 
an independent bit of evidence as to the original meaning of 
the term. The clerical substitution of 0eé7eumros for it under 
the influence of literary associations would indeed, in this 
case too, only witness to a synonymy in the mind of the 
later scribes, who may well be supposed Christians and 
sharers in the common conception that Christians read into 
deorrvevoros. But the implications of the passage itself would 
be valid testimony to the original import of the term here 
used. And it would seem quite clear that the implications of 
the passage itself assign to it a passive sense, and that a 
sense not very remote from Oedmeumros. ‘‘ Herophilus says,”’ 
we read, ‘‘that theopneustic dreams” (‘‘dreams divinely in- 
spired,”’ Holland; ‘‘the dreams that are caused by divine 
instinct,’’ Goodwin), ‘‘come by necessity; but natural ones” 
(“natural dreams,’’ Holland; ‘‘dreams which have their 
origin from a natural cause,’”’ Goodwin), ‘‘from the soul’s 
imagery of what is fitting to it and its consequences,”’ etc.“ 
The contrast here between dreams that are Oedmvevoro. and 
those that are dvokot, the former of which are imposed on 
the soul while the latter are its own production, would seem 
certainly to imply that Oedmvevoros here imports something 
nearly akin to ‘‘God-given,” though naturally with impli- 
cations of its own as to the mode of the giving. It might be 


44 In the common text the passage goes on to tell us of the dreams of mixed 
nature, i. e., presumably partly divine and partly human in origin. But the idea 
itself seems incongruous and the description does not very well fit the category. 
Diels, therefore, conjectures zvevyarcxobs in its place in which case there are three 
categories in the enumeration: Theopneustic, physical (i. e., the product of the 
Yuxn or lower nature), and pneumatic, or the product of the higher nature. The 
whole passage in Diels’ recension runs as follows: Aét. ‘Plac.,’ p. 416 (Pseudo- 
Plut., v. 2, 3): ‘Hpddidros r&v dvelpwy rods pty Oeowéumrous Kar’? avayKnvy yiveoOat, 
Tovds d€ drarkods dvedwrororoumerns Wux As TO TUUdepoy abrH Kal ro wavTws égduevor, rods 
dé ovyKpauarixods [rvevuarixols ? Diels, but this is scarcely the right correction, cf. 
Susemihl, “ Gesch. d. Gr. Lit.,’’ etc. i. 792] [éx rod abrouarou] kar’ eddAwv TpooTTWwoL, 
drav & Bovddueha Bréetwper, ds Exl TY Tas Epwuevas Opwvrwv & brvy ylwera.” 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 249 


possible to read it as designating dreams that are breathed 
into by God, filled with His inspiration and thus made the 
vehicles of His message, if we otherwise knew that such is 
the implication of the term. But nothing so subtle as this is 
suggested by the language as it stands, which appears to 
convey merely the simple notion that theopneustic dreams 
differ from all natural ones, whether the latter belong to the 
higher or lower elements of our nature, in that they come 
from God and are therefore not necessarily agreeable to the 
soul’s own image-making faculties or the product of its im- 
manent desires, but take form and bear a meaning imposed 
on them from without. 

There are few other instances of the occurrence of the 
word which have much chance of lying entirely outside the 
sphere of influence of its use in II Tim. iii. 16. In the first rank 
of these will certainly be placed the two instances in the 
fifth book of the “Sibyllines.”” The former of these occurs in 
a description of the city of Cyme, which is called the ‘‘foolish 
one,’ and described as cast down by wicked hands, “along 
with her theopneustic streams (vauact Jeorvebotors)’’ no longer 
to shout her boasts into the air but henceforth to remain 
‘“‘dead amid the Cymean streams.” * The description skill- 
fully brings together all that we know of Cyme — adverts 
to her former greatness (‘‘the largest and noblest of all the 
AKolian cities,’ Strabo tells us,** and with Lesbos, ‘‘the me- 
tropolis”’ of all the rest), her reputation for folly (also ad- 
verted to and quaintly explained by Strabo), her present 
decadence, and her situation by running waters (a trait in- 
dicated also by her coins which show that there was a stream | 


4 V. 308 seg. The full text, in Rzach’s edition, runs: 


Kiun 8’  pwp) civ vapyaow ols Beorvebarous 

"Ev raddpats abewy dvipGv dadixwy kal dbéouwv 
’Pidbeto’ obk Ere riccov és aifépa phua mpodwoe: 
"AAG peved vexpy evi vayact KUpatovou, 


dam ed., 1707, p. 924). A good summary may be read in Smith’s “‘ Dictionary of 
- Greek and Roman Geography,” 1. 724, 725. 


250 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


near by called Xanthus). It has been customary to under- 
stand by ‘‘thetheopneustic streams’’ mentioned, somestreams 
or fountains in the neighborhood known for the presump- 
tively oracular powers of their waters.*’ But there does not 
seem to have been preserved any notice of the existence of 
such oracular waters belonging to Cyme, and it makes against 
this assumption that the Cymeans, like the rest of the Io- 
nians and Avolians, were accustomed to resort for their oracles 
to the somewhat distant Branchide, in the south.*® It ap- 
pears much more likely, then, that the streams adverted to 
are natural streams and stand here only as part of the rather 
full and very exact description of the town — the reference 
being primarily to the Xanthus and to it as an element 
merely in the excellence of the situation. In that case ‘‘the- 
opneustic,”’ here too, would seem to mean something akin 
to ‘‘God-given,”’ or perhaps more broadly still ‘‘divine,’’ in 
the sense of specially excellent and desirable. 

The second Sibylline passage is a portion of a lament over 
the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, wherein (we are 
told) gold, ‘‘deceiver of the world and souls,’’ was not wor- 
shiped, but men ‘‘adored in sacrifices, with pure and noble 
hecatombs, the great Father-God of all theopneustic things.” *® 
Here Alexandre translates, ‘‘Qui czlestis vitam pater om- 
nibus afflat’’; and Terry, ‘‘The God and mighty maker of 
all breathing things.’”’ °° And they seem supported in their 
general conception by the fact that we appear to have before 
us here only a slightly varied form of a formula met with 
elsewhere in the Sibyllines. Thus, as Rzach points out, we 


47 Alexandre translates ‘‘plenis numine lymphis”; Dr. Terry, ‘‘inspired 
streams.” 
48 So Herodotus observes (i, 157). 
49 V. 408 seg. In Rzach’s text the lines run: 
Ob yap axndéotws aivet Oedv €& Adhavots yijs 
ovdé TETPHY Tolnoe Gods TEKTWY Tapa ToUTOLS, 
ov xpuddv Koopuou amatny Yuxady 7’ éseBaabn, 
a\Aa peyayv yevernpa Oedv TravTwy BeotveboTwv 
& Ovaias éyépaip’ aylats Kadais OéxarduBass. 


50 In this second edition, Dr. Terry has altered this to “‘The Mighty Father, 
God of all things God-inspired”’: but this scarcely seems an improvement. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 251 


have at iil, 278 * a condemnation of those who ‘‘neither fear 
nor desire to honor the deathless Father-God of all men,’’ ” 
and at iii, 604, essentially the same phrase is repeated. We 
seem, in a word, to meet here only with the Sibylline equiva- 
lent of the Homeric ‘‘zarip avipay re Oedv re.’’ Accordingly 
deomvevoTwv would seem to stand here in the stead of avO@pw7wv 
in the parallel passages, and merely to designate men, doubt- 
less with a reminiscence of Gen. ii. 7 — or perhaps, more 
widely, creatures, with a reminiscence of such a passage as 
Ps. civ. 30. In either event it is the creative power of God 
that is prominently in the mind of the writer as he writes 
down the word @eorvebotwyv, which is to him obviously the 
proper term for ‘‘creatures”’ in correlation with the yevérys 
eds. 

By the side of these Sibylline passages it is perhaps 
natural to place the line from the Pseudo-Phocylides, which 
marks the culmination of his praise of ‘‘speech”’ as the 
greatest gift of God — a weapon, he says, sharper than steel 
and more to be desired than the swiftness of birds, or the 
speed of horses, or the strength of lions, or the horns of bulls 
or the stings of bees — ‘‘for best [of all] is the speech of 
theopneustic wisdom,”’ so that the wise man is better than 
the strong one, and it is wisdom that rules alike in the field, 
the city and the sea. It is certainly simplest to understand 
“theopneustic wisdom” here shortly as ‘God-given wis- 
dom.’’ Undoubtedly it is itself the inspirer of the speech that 
manifests it, and we might manage to interpret the Oeo- 
mvevaTou as so designating it — ‘‘God-inspiring, God-breath- 
ing wisdom.’’ But this can scarcely be considered natural; 
and it equally undoubtedly les more closely at hand to 
interpret it as designating the source of the wisdom itself 
as lying in God. Wisdom is conceived as theopneustic, in a 
word, because wisdom itself is thought of as coming from 
God, as being the product of the divine activity — here 


51 ob5é PoBnOels ABdvarov yeverfpa Oedvy TavTuv avOpwrwyr odk eres Tiuav. Rzach 
compares also Xenophon. ‘‘Fragm.,” 1. 1, M., e‘is Oeds & re Oeotor kai avOpwroor 
beéeytoTos* 


8 Terry, Ed. 2: ‘‘the immortal Father, God of all mankind.” 


252 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


designated, as so frequently in the Old Testament, as operat- 
ing as a breathing. 

A passage that has come to light since Dr. Cremer’s in- 
vestigation for this word-study was made, is of not dissimilar 
implication. It is found in the recently published “ Testament 
of Abraham,” a piece which in its original form, its editor, 
Prof. James, assigns to a second-century Egyptian Jewish- 
Christian, though it has suffered much medizvalization in 
the ninth or tenth century. It runs as follows: “‘ And Michael 
the archangel came immediately with a multitude of angels, 
and they took his precious soul (rv tiuiay ab’rod Yuxnv) in 
their hands in a God-woven cloth (ov.vddrm beovdavTd); and 
they prepared (éxyndevoav) the body of righteous Abraham 
unto the third day of his death with theopneustic ointments 
and herbs (uupiouact OeomvevoTows Kat apwuacw), and they 
buried him in the land of promise.’ Here @edrvevoros can 
hardly mean ‘‘God-breathing,’’ and ‘‘God-imbued”’ is not 
much better; and though we might be tempted to make it 
mean ‘‘divinely sweet’’ (a kind of derivative sense of ‘‘ God- 
redolent ointment’’; for tvém means also ‘‘to smell,’’ ‘‘to 
breathe of a thing’’), it is doubtless better to take it simply, 
as the parallel with deovdarv7G suggests, as importing some- 
thing not far from ‘‘God-given.”’ The cloth in which the 
soul was carried up to God and the unguents with which the 
body was prepared for burial were alike from God — were 
‘“God-provided’”’; the words to designate this being chosen 
in each case with nice reference to their specific application, 
but covering to their writer little more specific meaning than 
the simple adjective ‘‘ divine”’ would have done. 

It is surely in this same category also that we are to place 
the verse of Nonnus which Dr. Cremer adduces as showing 
distinctly that the word @Oeérvevatos ‘‘is not to be taken as 
equivalent to inspiratus, inspired by God, but as rather 
meaning filled with God’s spirit and therefore radiating it.” 
Nonnus is paraphrasing John 1. 27 and makes the Baptist 
say: ““And he that cometh after me stands to-day in your 


53 Recension A, chap. xx. p. 103, ed. James. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 293 


midst, the tip of whose foot I am not worthy to approach 
with human hand though only to loose the thongs of the 
theopneustic sandal.’’ * Here surely the meaning is not di- 
rectly that our Lord’s sandal ‘‘radiated divinity,’ though 
certainly that may be one of the implications of the epithet, 
but more simply that it partook of the divinity of the divine 
Person whose property it was and in contact with whom it 
had been. All about Christ was divine. We should not go 
far wrong, therefore, if we interpreted Oedmvevaros here simply 
as “‘divine.”’ What is ‘‘divine”’ is no doubt ‘‘redolent of 
Divinity,” but it is so called not because of what it does, 
but because of what it is, and Nonnus’ mind when he called 
the sandal theopneustic was occupied rather with the divine 
influence that made the sandal what it was, viz., something 
more than a mere sandal, because it had touched those divine 
feet, than with any influence which the sandal was now cal- 
culated to exert. The later line which Dr. Cremer asks us 
to compare is not well calculated to modify this decision. 
In it John i. 33 is being paraphrased and the Baptist is con- 
trasting his mission with that of Christ who was to baptize 
with fire and the Holy Spirit & wupt Barrifwy kai rvevuartt). 
He, John, was sent, on the contrary, he says, to baptize the 
body of already regenerate men, and to do it in lavers that 
are destitute of both fire and the spirit — fireless and spirit- 
less (dmtpo.ce Kal amvetvotoroe \oeTpots).” It may indeed be 
possible to interpret, ‘‘unburning and unspiritualizing’’; but 
this does not seem the exact shade of thought the words are 
meant to express; though in any case the bearing of the 
phrase on the meaning of OedzvevoTos in the former line is of 
the slightest. 

Of the passages cited by Dr. Cremer there remain only 
the two he derives from Wetstein, in which 6edmvevaros ap- 

54 Nonni Panopolitani ‘‘Paraphrasis in Joannem” (i. 27), in Migne, xliii. 753: 

Kai démicrepos éotts ixdver 
ZHmepov bpelwy péoos tararat, ov modds aKkpov, 


*Avdpouenv tadaunv ov aétds elute medAdooas, 
Adoat podvov tuavra Oeorvebatoro medidov. 


55 Op. cit., p. 756. 


254 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


pears as an epithet of certain men. To these should be added 
an inscription found at Bostra, in which a certain ecclesiastic 
is designated an apxvepels Bedrvevaros.*© Dr. Cremer himself 
thinks it clear that in such passages we have a passive sense, 
but interprets it as divinely spirited, ‘‘endued with the divine 
spirit,” rather than as ‘‘ divinely wnspired,’’ — in accordance 
with a distinction drawn by Ewald. Certainly it is difficult 
to understand the word in this connection as expressing 
simple origination by God; it was something more than the 
mere fact that God made them that was intended to be 
affirmed by calling Marcus and Antipater theopneustic men. 
Nor does it seem very natural to suppose that the intention 
was to designate them as precisely what we ordinarily mean 
by God-inspired men. It lies very near to suppose, therefore, 
that what it was intended to say about them, is that they 
were God-pervaded men, men in whom God dwelt in an 
especial manner; and this supposition may be thought to be 
supported by the parallel, in the passage from the “ Vita 
Sabee,’’ with yprorodépos. Of whom this ‘‘caravan of all the- 
opneustics, of all his christophers,’’ was composed, we have 
no means of determining, as Cotelerius’ ““ Monumenta,”’ from 
which Wetstein quoted the passage, is not accessible to us 
as we write. But the general sense of the word does not seem 
to be doubtful. Ignatius, (“ad Ephes.” ix.) tells us that all 
Christians constitute such a caravan, of ‘‘God-bearers and 
shrine-bearers, Christ-bearers, holy-thing-bearers, completely 
clothed in the commandments of Christ’’; and Zahn rightly 
comments that thus the Christians appear as the real ‘‘ év.Beor 
or évOovo.afovres, since they carry Christ and God in them- 


66 It is given in Kaibel’s ‘‘Epigrammata Greca,” p. 477. Waddington sup- 
poses the person meant to be a certain Archbishop of Bostra, of date 457-474, an 
opponent of Origenism, who is commemorated in the Greek Church on June 13. 
The inscription runs as follows: 


Adéns] dpOordlyjov tapins kal brépyaxos éoOXés, 
apxvepeds Oedmvevatos édeiuaro Kaddos Guerpov 
"Avrimarp lols] xAvrounris aeOAopdpous per’ aySvas, 
KuL6 laivwy peyadws Oeountopa mapbevov ayvhv 
Mapiav mwodtupvov, aknpatov ay\addwpor: 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 259 


selves.’’ Particularly distinguished Christians might there- 
fore very properly be conceived in a supereminent sense as 
filled with God and bearers of Christ; and this might very 
appropriately be expressed by the double attribution of Oed7- 
vevoTos and xpiotodopos. Only it would seem to be necessary 
to understand that thus a secondary and derived sense would 
be attributed to Oedmvevoros, about which there should still 
cling a flavor of the idea of origination. The Oeorvevaros avnp 
is God-filled by the act of God Himself, that is to say, he is 
a God-endowed man, one made what he is by God’s own 
efficiency. No doubt in usage the sense might suffer still 
more attrition and come to suggest little more than ‘‘divine”’ 
— which is the epithet given to Marcus of Scetis ” by Ni- 
cephorus Callistus, (“H. E.,’’xi, 35) — 6 6etos Mapxos —that is 
to say ‘‘Saint Mark,” of which 6 Oedrvevotos Mapxos is doubt- 
less a very good synonym. The conception conveyed by 6e0- 
mvevoTos in this usage is thus something very distinct from 
that expressed by the Vulgate rendering, a Deo inspiratus, 
when taken strictly; that would seem to require, as Ewald 
suggests, some such form as @eéumvevotos; the theopneustic 
man is not the man ‘‘ breathed into by God.”’ But it is equally 
distinct from that expressed by the phrase, ‘‘pervaded by 
God,” used as an expression of the character of the man so 
described, without implication of the origin of this charac- 
teristic. What it would seem specifically to indicate is that 
he has been framed by God into something other than what 
he would have been without the divine action. The Christian 
as such is as much God-made as the man as such; and the 
distinguished Christian as such as much as the Christian at 
large; and the use of 6edmvevaros to describe the one or the 
other would appear to rest ultimately on this conception. He 


57 Wetstein cites the expression as applied (where, he does not say) to 
“‘Marcus Aigyptus,” by which he means, we suppose, Marcus of Scetis, mentioned 
by Sozomen, H. E., vi. 29, and Nicephorus Callistus, H. E., xi. 35. Dr. Cremer 
transmutes the designation into Marcus Eremita, who is mentioned by Nice- 
phorus Callistus, H. E., xiv. 30, 54, and whose writings are collected in Migne, 
Ixy. 905 seg. The two are often identified, but are separately entered in Smith and 
Wace. 


256 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


is, in what he has become, the product of the divine energy — 
of the divine breath. 

We cannot think it speaking too strongly, therefore, to 
say that there is discoverable in none of these passages the 
slightest trace of an active sense of Oedmvevaros, by which it 
should express the idea, for example, of ‘‘breathing the 
divine spirit,’? or even such a quasi-active idea as that of 
‘redolent of God.’ Everywhere the word appears as purely 
passive and expresses production by God. And if we proceed 
from these passages to those much more numerous ones, in 
which it is, as in II Tim. iii. 16, an epithet or predicate of 
Seripture, and where therefore its signification may have 
been affected by the way in which Christian antiquity under- 
stood that passage, the impression of the passive sense of the 
word grows, of course, ever stronger. Though these passages 
may not be placed in the first rank of material for the deter- 
mination of the meaning of II Tim. ii. 16, by which they 
may have themselves been affected; it is manifestly improper 
to exclude them from consideration altogether. Even as part 
bearers of the exegetical tradition they are worthy of adduc- 
tion: and it is scarcely conceivable that the term should have 
been entirely voided of its current sense, had it a different 
current sense, by the influence of a single employment of it 
by Paul — especially if we are to believe that its natural 
meaning as used by him differed from that assigned it by 
subsequent writers. The patristic use of the term in connec- 
tion with Scripture has therefore its own weight, as evidence 
to the natural employment of the term by Greek-speaking 
Christian writers. 

This use of it does not seem to occur in the very earliest 
patristic literature: but from the time of Clement of Alex- 
andria the term Oedmvevotros appears as one of the most com- 
mon technical designations of Scripture. The following scat- 
tered instances, gathered at random, will serve to illustrate 
this use of it sufficiently for our purpose. Clement of Alex- 
andria: ‘“‘Strom.,” vii. 16, §101 (Klotz, ili. 286; Potter, 
894), ‘‘ Accordingly those fall from their eminence who follow 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 257 


not God whither He leads; and He leads us in the inspired 
Scriptures (kata Tas OeomvetbaTous ypadas)’’; ‘“Strom.,’’ vii. 16, 
§ 103 (Klotz, ii. 287; Potter, 896), ‘‘But they crave glory, 
as many as willfully sophisticate the things wedded to in- 
spired words (rots Oeomvevarots \oyous) handed down by the 
blessed apostles and teachers, by diverse arguments, oppos- 
ing human teaching to the divine tradition for the sake of 
establishing the heresy ’”’; ‘‘ Protrept.” 9, § 87 (Klotz., i. 73, 74; 
Potter 71), ‘‘ This teaching the apostle knows as truly divine 
(Oetav): ‘Thou, O Timothy,’ he says, ‘from a child hast known 
the holy letters which are able to make thee wise unto sal- 
vation, through faith that is in Jesus Christ’; for truly holy 
are those letters that sanctify and deify; and the writings or 
volumes that consist of these holy letters or syllables, the 
same apostle consequently calls ‘inspired by God, seeing that 
they are profitable for doctrine,’ etc.’’ Origen: “De Princi- 
piis,” iv, 8 (ef. also title to Book iv), ‘‘Having thus spoken 
briefly on the subject of the Divine inspiration of the Holy 
Seriptures (epi tod Oeorvebaorov THs Oelas ypadys)’’; Migne, 
(11, 1276), ‘‘The Jews and Christians agree as to the inspi- 
ration of the Holy Scripture (Oeiw yeypadbat mvevyati), but 
differ as to its interpretation”’; (12, 1084), ‘‘ Therefore the in- 
spired books (@eomvevora BiBdia) are twenty-two’’; (14, 1309), 
‘“The inspired Scripture”’; (13, 664-5), ‘‘For we must seek 
the nourishment of the whole inspired Scripture (zaons Tis 
deomvevatov ypadjs); ‘Hom. xx. in Joshuam,” 2 (Robinson’s 
“Origen’s Philocalia,’’ p. 63), ‘‘Let us not then be stupefied 
by listening to Scriptures which we do not understand, but let 
it be to us according to our faith by which we believe that 
‘every Scripture, seeing that it is inspired (@eémvevaros), is 
profitable ’: for you must needs admit one of two things re- 
garding these Scriptures, either that they are not inspired 
(Oeorvevorot) because they are not profitable, as the unbeliever 
takesit, or, asa believer, youmust admit that since they are in- 
spired (Oedmvevoror) they are profitable” ; “Selecta in Psalmos,” 
Ps. i, 3 (Migne XII, 11. 1080; De la Rue, 527), ‘‘ Being about 
to begin the interpretation of the Psalms, we prefix a very 


258 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


excellent tradition handed down by the Hebrew * to us gen- 
erally concerning the whole divine Scripture (kafodtx@s repli 
mwaons Oetas ypadhs); for he affirmed that the whole inspired 
Scripture (r7v OAnv OedrvevoTov ypadny).... But if ‘the words 
of the Lord are pure words, fined silver, tried as the earth, 
purified seven times’ (Ps. il. 7) and the Holy Spirit has 
with all care dictated them accurately through the ministers 
of the word (uera maons axpiBelas EEnTaguEévws TO AYLOV TYEV UA 
broBEBAnKkev auTa dra T@V brnpeTav Tov dOyov), let the propor- 
tion never escape us, according to which the wisdom of God 
is first with respect to the whole theopneustic Scripture unto 
the last letter (xa@’ jv ért racav épOace ypadny 4 aodia Tov 
Oeod OedrvevaTov péxpl TOU TUXOVTOS YpadumaTos); and haply it 
was on this account that the Saviour said, ‘One iota or one 
letter shall not pass from the law till all be fulfilled’: and it 
is just so that the divine art in the creation of the world, not 
only appeared in the heaven and sun and moon and stars, 
interpenetrating their whole bodies, but also on earth did 
the same in paltry matter, so that not even the bodies of the 
least animals are disdained by the artificer. ... So we under- 
stand concerning all the things written by the inspiration 
(€& éxurvoias) of the Holy Spirit ... .’’ Athanasius (Migne, 
27, 214): raca ypad) hudv T&v xpiotiavev Oedmvevatos éorw; 
(Migne, 25, 152): @edmvevatos Kadetrar; (Bened. Par., 1777, i. 
767): “Saying also myself, ‘Since many have taken in hand 
to set forth to themselves the so-called apocrypha and to 
sing them with 774 OeomvetoTw ypadyj... .’”’ Cyrillus Hier., 
‘ Catechet.,” iv. 33: ‘‘ This is taught us by ai Gedmvevarot ypadat 
of both the Old and New Covenant.” Basil, ‘‘On the Spirit,”’ 
xxi (ad fin.) : ‘‘ How can he who calls Scripture ‘God-inspired’ 
because it was written through the inspiration of the Spirit 
(6 BedrvevoToy THY ypadny ovoyatwr, b1a THs ériTvolas TOU aylou 
TvevuaTos cvyypadetoav), use the language of one who insults 
and belittles Him?” “Letters,” xvii. 3: ‘‘ All bread is nutri- 


88 That is doubtless the Jewish teacher to whom he elsewhere refers, as, e. g., 
“De Principiis,”’ iv. 20 (Ante-Nicene Library, N. Y. ed., iv. 375), where the same 
general subject is discussed. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 259 


tious, but it may be injurious to the sick; just so, all Scripture 
is God-inspired (7aca ypad? Oedrvevoros) and profitable”; 
(Migne, xxx. 81): ‘‘The words of God-inspired Scripture (oi 
THs Oeorvebatov ypadys Oyo) shall stand on the tribune of 
Christ’’; (Migne, 31, 744): ‘‘For every word or deed must 
be believed by the witness of the deorvetatouv ypadis, for the 
assurance of the good and the shame of the wicked’’; (Migne, 
31, 1080): ‘‘ Apart from the witness of the Beorvetatwrv ypadav 
it is not possible, etc.’’; (Migne, 31, 1500): ‘‘ From what sort 
of Scripture are we to dispute at this time? IIavra 6udreua, 
Kal TavTa TVEVMATLKA’ TWaVTA DedTVEVOTA, Kal TWaVYTA WHEALLA”’; 
(Migne, 31, 1536): ‘‘On the interpretation and remarking of 
the names and terms 77s Oeomvelbotov ypadys’’; (Migne, 32, 
228): weytorn 6€ 660s pos THY TOV KaOnKOVTOS EpEeoLY Kal 7 MEAETH 
Tov Beorvebatwy ypadav. Gregory Naz. (Migne, 35, 504): zepl 
Tov JeomvevaTou TaV aylwv ypadav ; (Migne, 36, 472, cf. 37, 589), 
Tept TaV Yynolwy BibNiwy THs Peomvevbatov ypadjs; (Migne, 36, 
1589), rots OeorvevoTos ypadats. Gregory Nyssen, “ Against 
EKunom.,”’ vil. 1: ‘‘What we understand of the matter is as 
follows: ‘H Oedrvevaros ypadn, as the divine apostle calls it, 
is the Scripture of the Holy Spirit and its intention is the 
profit of men’’; (Migne, 44, 68), wovns THs GeorvevaoTou dradykns. 
Cyrillus Alex. (Migne, 68, 225), roduuepas kai rod\uTpOTWs 7 
deomvevoTos ypady TIS Ola XpPLOTOV GWTHPlLas Tpoavamwvet Tous 
tirous. Neilos Abbas (Migne, 79, 141, cf. 529): ypad7 7) Ac6- 
mvevoTos ovdey Neyer Akalpws KTA. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (“‘ H. 
E.’’, 1. 6; Migne, ii. 920). John of Damascus (Migne, 85, 
1041), etc. 

If, then, we are to make an induction from the use of the 
word, we shall find it bearing a uniformly passive significance, 
rooted in the idea of the creative breath of God. All that is, 
is God-breathed (“‘Sibyll.” v. 406) ; and accordingly the rivers 
that water the Cymean plain are God-breathed (“‘ Sibyll.” v. 
308), the spices God provides for the dead body of His friend 
(“Testament of Abraham,” A. xx), and above all the wisdom 
He implants in the heart of man (Ps.-Phocyl. 121), the dreams 
He sends with a message from Him (Ps.-Plut., v. 2, 3) and 


260 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the Scriptures He gives His people (II Tim. i. 16). By an ex- 
tension of meaning by no means extreme, those whom He has 
greatly honored as His followers, whom He has created into 
His saints, are called God-breathed men (“ Vita Sabe” 16. 
Inscription in Kaibel) ; and even the sandals that have touched 
the feet of the Son of God are called God-breathed sandals 
(Nonnus), i. e., sandals that have been made by this divine 
contact something other than what they were: in both these 
cases, the word approaching more or less the broader mean- 
ing of ‘‘divine.’?’ Nowhere is there a trace of such an active 
significance as ‘‘God-breathing”’; and though in the appli- 
cation of the word to individual men and to our Lord’s 
sandals there may be an approach to the sense of ‘‘God- 
imbued,” this sense is attained by a pathway of development 
from the simple idea of God-given, God-determined, and the 
like. 

It is carefully to be observed, of course, that, although 
Dr. Cremer wishes to reach an active signification for the 
word in II Tim. 1. 16, he does not venture to assign an 
active sense to it immediately and directly, but approaches 
this goal through the medium of another signification. It is 
fully recognized by him that the word is originally passive 
in its meaning; it is merely contended that this original pas- 
sive sense is not ‘‘God-inspired,”’ but rather ‘‘ God-filled”’ 
—a sense which, it is pleaded, will readily pass into the active 
sense of ‘‘God-breathing,”’ after the analogy of such words 
as a&mrvevoTos, evrvevotos, Which from “‘ill- or well-breathed”’ 
came to mean ‘‘breathing ill or well.’’? What is filled with 
God will certainly be redolent of God, and what is redolent 
of God will certainly breathe out God. His reasons for pre- 
ferring the sense of ‘‘gifted or filled with God’s Spirit, di- 
vinely spirited,’’ to ‘‘God-inspired”’ for the original passive 
connotation of the word are drawn especially from what he 
thinks the unsuitableness of the latter idea to some of the 
connections in which the word is found. It is thought that, 
as an epithet of an individual man, as an epithet of Scripture 
or a fountain, and (in the later editions of the ‘‘ Lexicon”’ at 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 261 


least) especially, as an epithet of a sandal, ‘‘God-inspired”’ 
is incongruous, and something like ‘‘filled with God’s Spirit 
and therefore radiating it’’ is suggested. There is obviously 
some confusion here arising from the very natural contem- 
plation of the Vulgate translation ‘‘a Deo inspiratus’’ as the 
alternative rendering to what is proposed. There is, we may 
well admit, nothing in the word @edmvevoros to warrant the 
un- of the Vulgate rendering: this word speaks not of an 
“aspiration” by God, but of a “spiration’’ by God. The 
alternatives brought before us by Dr. Cremer’s presentation 
are not to be confined, therefore, to the two, ‘‘ Divinely 
spirited’’ and “‘ Divinely znspired,’’ but must be made to in- 
clude the three, ‘‘ Divinely spirited,” ‘‘ Divinely inspired,”’ 
and ‘‘ Divinely spired.’”’ The failure of Dr. Cremer to note 
this introduces, as we say, some confusion into his statement. 
We need only thus incidentally refer to it at this point, how- 
ever. It is of more immediate importance to observe that 
what we are naturally led to by Dr. Cremer’s remarks, is to 
an investigation of the natural meaning of the word dedmrvevo- 
tos under the laws of word-formation. In these remarks he is 
leaning rather heavily on the discussion of Ewald to which he 
refers us, and it will conduce to a better understanding of the 
matter if we will follow his directions and turn to our Ewald. 

Ewald, like Dr. Cremer, is dissatisfied with the current 
explanation of #eémvevoros and seeks to obtain for it an active 
sense, but is as little inclined as Dr. Cremer to assign an 
active sense directly to it. He rather criticises Winer,” for 
using language when speaking of @edmvevotos which would 
seem to imply that such compounds could really be active — 
as if ‘it were to be taken as a passive, although such words 
as eUmvevoTos, &mvevoTos are used actively.’’ He cannot admit 
that any compound of a word like -zvevaros can be really 
active in primary meaning, and explains that evmvevoTos 
means not so much “breathing good,” i. e., propelling some- 
thing good by the breath, as ‘‘endowed with good breath,”’ 
and expresses, therefore, just like amvevoros, ‘“‘breathless,”’ 

59 “Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft,” vu. 114. 


262 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


i. e., ‘‘dead,”’ a subjective condition, and is therefore to be 
compared with a half-passive verb, as indeed the word-form 
suggests. Just so, Jedmvevoros, he says, is not so much our 
‘‘God-breathing”’ as our ‘‘full of God’s Spirit,” “‘permeated 
and animated by God’s Spirit.’”’ Thus, he supposes deomvevoTos 
to mean “blown through by God” (Gottdurchwehet, ‘‘ God- 
pervaded”’), rather than “blown into by God” (Gotteinge- 
wehet, ‘‘God-inspired’’) as the Vulgate (¢nspiratus) and Luther 
(eingegeben) render it — an idea which, as he rightly says, 
would have required something like Oeéumvevaros © (or we may 
say OeeiomvevoTos) * to express it. 

At first he seems to have thought that by this explanation 
he had removed all implication as to the origination of Scrip- 


60 In a note on p. 89, Ewald adds as to Oeéurvevoros that it is certainly true 
that such compounds are not common, and that this particular one does not occur: 
but that they are possible is shown by the occurrence of such examples as @eo- 
avvaxtos, JeokatacKkevacros, in which the preposition occurs: and dem Laute nach, the 
formation is like 6e4\aros. There seems to be no reason, we may add, why, if it 
were needed, we should not have had a Oeéurvevaros by the side of Gedmvevaros, just 
as by the side of rvevxaroddpos we have mvevuaréudopos (“‘ Etymologicum Magnum,” 
677, 28; John of Damascus, in Migne, 96, 837c.: "Hoe mpodyrav mvevparéupopov 
ora). 

61 For not even Oeeurvéw would properly signify ‘‘breathe into” but rather 
“breathe in,” “inhale.”’ It is by a somewhat illogical extension of meaning that 
the verb and its derivatives (€uavevots, éurvora) are used in the theological sense of 
“inspiration,” in which sense they do not occur, however, either in the LXX. or 
the New Testament. In the LXX. éumvevoirs means a “blast,” a “blowing” (Ps. 
XV. (xvill.) 15; cf. the participle éurvéwy, Acts ix. 1); éurvous, “living,” “‘ breathing” 
(II Mace. vii. 5, xiv. 45); and the participle wav éurvéov, ‘every living, breathing 
thing” (Deut. xx. 16; Josh. x. 28, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40; xi. 14; Wisd. xv. 11). "Evorvéw 
is properly used by the classics in the sense of ‘“‘breathing into,” ‘‘inspiring”’: it 
is not found in itself or derivatives in LX X. or the New Testament — though it 
occurs in Aq. at Ex. i. 5. How easily and in what a full sense, however, éuzvéw is 
used by ecclesiastical writers for “‘inspire’’ may be noted from such examples as 
Ign. “ad Mag.,” 8: “For the divine (edraroc) prophets lived after Christ; for this 
cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by His grace (éuveduevor bd ris 
xapiros avrod) for the full persuasion of those that are disobedient.” Theoph. of 
Antioch, “ad. Autol.,” ii. 9: “Butt he men of God, zvevuaroddpa of the Holy 
Ghost, and becoming prophets iz’ airod rod eod éurvevobevres Kai codicbevres, be- 
came Geodidaxro. and holy and righteous.”’ The most natural term for ‘‘inspired”’ 
in classic Greek one would be apt to think, would be é@eos (& ous), with 76 évOeov 
for “inspiration”; and after it, participial or other derivatives of &ove.dtw: but 
both eiorvéw and éumvéw were used for the “inspiration” that consisted of 
‘breathing into’’ even in profane Greek. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 263 


ture from the epithet: it expresses, he said, what Scripture 
is — viz., pervaded by God, full of His Spirit — without the 
least hint as to how it got to be so. He afterwards came to see 
this was going too far, and contented himself with saying 
that though certainly implicating a doctrine of the origin of 
the Scriptures, the term throws the emphasis on its quality.® 
He now, therefore, expressed himself thus: ‘It is certainly 
undeniable that the new expression Oedrvevo7os, I] Tim. 111. 16, 
is intended to say very much what Philo meant, but did not 
yet know how to express sharply by means of such a com- 
pressed and strong term. For @edmvevoros (like etrvevotos, ac- 
curately, ‘well-breathed’) must mean ‘God-breathed’ or 
‘God-animated’ (Gottbeathmet, or Gottbegeistert), and, in ac- 
cordance with the genius of the compressed, clear Greek 
compounds, this includes in itself the implication that the 
words are spoken by the Spirit of God, or by those who are 
inspired by God,’ — a thing which, he adds, is repeatedly 
asserted in Scripture to have been the case, as, for example, in 
II Pet. i. 21. On another occasion,®™ he substantially repeats 
this, objecting to the translations inspiratus, eingegeben, as 
introducing an idea not lying in the word and liable to mis- 
lead, affirming a general but not perfect accord of the idea 
involved in it with Philo’s conception of Scripture, and in- 
sisting on the incomplete parallelism between the term and 
our dogmatic idea of ‘‘inspiration.” ‘‘This term,” he says, 
‘“no doubt expresses only what is everywhere presupposed 
by Philo as to Scripture and repeatedly said by him in other 
words; still his usage is not yet so far developed; and it is 
accordant with this that in the New Testament, also, it is 
only in one of the latest books that the word is thus used. 
This author was possibly the first who so applied it.” Again, 
Geomvevotos ‘‘means, purely passively, God-spirited (Gottbe- 
getstet), or full of God’s Spirit, not at all, when taken strictly, 
what we call discriminatingly God-inspired (Gottbegevstert) or 
filled with God’s inspiration (Begeisterung), but in itself only, 


pple oo: 63 “Geschichte des Volkes Israel,” vi. 245,'note. 
64 “Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft,” ix. 91. 


264 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


in a quite general sense, God-breathed, God-inspired (Gott- 
beathmet, Gottbegeistert), or filled with the divine spirit. In 
itself, therefore, it permits the most divers applications and 
we must appeal purely to the context in each instance in 
order to obtain its exact meaning.” 

Here we have in full what Dr. Cremer says so much more 
briefly in his articles. In order to orient ourselves with refer- 
ence to it, we shall need to consider in turn the two points 
that are emphasized. These are, first, the passive form and 
sense of the word; and, secondly, the particular passive sense 
attributed to it, to wit: Gottbegeistet rather than Gottbegevstert, 
‘‘endowed with God’s Spirit,”’ rather than “‘inspired by God.” 

On the former point there would seem to be little room 
for difference of opinion. We still read in Schmiedel’s Winer: 
‘‘Verbals in -ros correspond sometimes to Latin participles in 
-tus, sometimes to adjectives in -bilis”’; and then in a note 
(despite Ewald’s long-ago protest), after the adduction of 
authorities, ‘‘@edrvevotos, nspiratus (II Tim. ui. 16; passive 
like éumvevotos, while evrvevotos, dtvevoTos are active).’’® To 
these Thayer-Grimm adds also wupimvevotos and évod.arvevo- 
Tos as used actively and dvoavamvevaoros as used apparently 
either actively or passively. Ewald, however, has already 
taught us to look beneath the ‘‘active” usage of elmvevoTos 
and amvevoros for the “‘half-passive”’ background, and it may 
equally be found in the other cases; in each instance it is a 
state or condition at least, that is described by the word, and 
it is often only a matter of point of view whether we catch 
the passive conception or not. For example, we shall look 
upon dvadLamvevoTos as active or passive according as we think 
of the object it describes as a “slowly evaporating” or a 
‘‘slowly evaporated”’ object — that is, as an object that only 
slowly evaporates, or as an object that can be only with 
difficulty evaporated. We may prefer the former expression; 
the Greeks preferred the latter: that is all. We fully accord 


6 Sec. 16, 2, p. 1385. Cf. Thayer’s Winer, p. 96; Moulton’s, p. 120. Also 
Thayer’s Buttmann, p. 190. The best literature of the subject will be found 
adduced by Winer. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 265 


with Prof. Schulze, therefore, when he says that all words 
compounded with -rvevoros have the passive sense as their 
original implication, and the active sense, when it occurs, is 
always a derived one. On this showing it cannot be con- 
tended, of course, that 0eorvevoTos may not have, like some 
of its relatives, developed an active or quasi-active meaning, 
but a passive sense is certainly implied as its original one, 
and a certain presumption is thus raised for the originality 
of the passive sense which is found to attach to it in its most 
ordinary usage.® 

This conclusion finds confirmation in a consideration 
which has its bearing on the second point also — the con- 
sideration that compounds of verbals in -ros with Oeds nor- 
mally express an effect produced by God’s activity. This is 
briefly adverted to by Prof. Schulze, who urges that ‘‘the 
‘closely related Oeodidaxros, and many, or rather most, of the 
compounds of @eo- in the Fathers, bear the passive sense,”’ 
adducing in illustration: 6edGXacros, BeoBobAnTos, BeoyévyTos, 
deoy patos, Jedd unTtos, BeddoTos, Peodwpntos, BedOperTos, OeoxivyTos, 
OeoK\nTtos, Oeotroinros, BeopopynTtos, BedxpynaTos, PedoxpioTros. The 
statement may be much broadened and made to cover the 
whole body of such compounds occurring in Greek literature. 
Let any one run his eye down the list of compounds of 6eds 
with verbals in -ros as they occur on the pages of any Greek 
Lexicon, and he will be quickly convinced that the notion 
normally expressed is that of a result produced by God. The 
sixth edition of Liddell and Scott happens to be the one lying 
at hand as we write; and in it we find entered (if we have 


66 Compounds of -rvevoros do not appear to be very common. Liddell and 
Scott (ed. 6) do not record either évé- or 6:4- or éri- or even ed-; though the cognates 
are recorded, and further compounds presupposing them. The rare word eirvevaros 
might equally well express ‘‘breathing-well”’ quasi-actively, or ‘‘well-aired”’ 
passively; just as &vevoros is actually used in the two senses of “breathless” and 
““unventilated’”’: and a similar double sense belongs to évaavamvevoros, "Eumvevotos 
does not seem to occur in a higher sense; its only recorded usage is illustrated by 
Athenaeus, iv. 174, where it is connected with dpyava in the sense of wind-instru- 
ments: its cognates are used of “inspiration.’’ Only wupimvevoros = rupimvoos = 
“‘fire-breathing”’ is distinctively active in usage: cf. avamvevorus, poetic for dmveve- 
tos = ‘‘breathless.”’ 


266 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


counted aright), some eighty-six compounds of this type, of 
which, at least, seventy-five bear quite simply the sense of 
a result produced by God. We adjoin the list: Oenaros, Geo- 
Baoraxtos, Ge08dvaTOs, BeoBovAnTos, GeoSpaGevtos, Beoyévnros, Oed- 
yvwotos, Jedypamros, GeodéxTos, PeodtdaxrTos, Ged unros, PeoddunrTos, 
GeddoTos, Beodwpntos, OedbeTos, PeoxaTapatos, PeokaTacKevaoTos, 
BeoxéNevoTos, Oeoxivntos, PedknTOS, OeOKUNTOs, OedKpavTos, BedKxpt- 
Tos, OedxtnTos, OedKTioTos, OedKTLTOS, OeoKvBEpyvynTos, OeoxvpwrTos, 
Oed\exTos, GedAn7TOos, PeouakapioTtos, Heouiontos, BedpvaTos, Oed- 
mataTos, Jeomapadoros, Geomapaxtos, GeoreuTTos, Oeomépatos, Ge0- 
wAnKTos, GedrovTOs, Georoinros, Peorovntos, GeompdadeKTos, Bed7r- 
TuaTos, Oedpyntos, Oedppyntos, Béopros, OedadoTos, OedaTpEeT Tos, 
Geootnpiktos, Beoorvynros, BeoovAEKTOS, OeoovuduTos, Peoovvak- 
Tos, OedavTos, Beoogmpay.atos, GedowaTos, PeoTépatos, GEdTEVKTOS, 
Georiunros, OedTpertos, GeotiTwtos, GeovrédaTaTos, Beoidavtos, Oc6- 
davtos, Geopbeyxtos, Geodirntos, Pedpo.tos, BeohopynTos, Peodpovpn- 
Tos, JeoptaxTos, Peoxo\wrTos, JedxpynoTos, Pedxpioros. The eleven 
instances that remain, as in some sort exceptions to the gen- 
eral rule, include cases of different kinds. In some of them 
the verbal is derived from a deponent verb and is therefore 
passive only in form, but naturally bears an active sense: 
such are OeodnAnros (God-injuring), @eouiunros (God-imitat- 
ing), Oedcerros (feared as God). Others may possibly be really 
passives, although we prefer an active form in English to 
express the idea involved: such are, perhaps, #edxduTos (‘‘ God- 
heard,’’ where we should rather say, ‘‘calling on the gods”’’), 
Beoxo\AnTos (“‘God-joined,’? where we should rather say, 
‘united with God’’), edmpemros (‘‘ God-distinguished,”’ where 
we should rather say, ‘‘meet for a god’’). There remain only 
these five: deaitynros (‘‘ obtained from God’’), OedOuTos (‘‘ offered 
to the gods’’), Geoppaaros and the more usual Oedpporos (‘‘ flow- 
ing from the gods’’), and deoxwpyros (‘‘containing God’’). In 
these the relation of #eds to the verbal idea is clearly not that 
of producing cause to the expressed result, but some other: 
perhaps what we need to recognize is that the verbal here 
involves a relation which we ordinarily express by a prepo- 
sition, and that the sense would be suggested by some such 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 267 


phrases as ‘* God-asked-of,”’ ‘‘ God-offered-to,”’ ‘‘ God-flowed- 
from,” “‘God-made-room-for.”’ In any event, these few ex- 
ceptional cases cannot avail to set aside the normal sense of 
this compound, as exhibited in the immense majority of the 
cases of its occurrence. If analogy is to count for anything, 
its whole weight is thrown thus in favor of the interpretation 
which sees in #edrvevoros, quite simply, the sense of ‘‘God- 
breathed,’’ i. e., produced by God’s creative breath. 

If we ask, then, what account is to be given of Ewald’s 
and, after him, Prof. Cremer’s wish, to take it in the specific . 
sense of ‘‘God-spirited,”’ that is, ‘‘imbued with the Spirit of 
God,’’ we may easily feel ourselves somewhat puzzled to 
return a satisfactory answer. We should doubtless not go far 
wrong in saying, as already suggested, that their action is 
proximately due to their not having brought all the alter- 
natives fairly before them. They seem to have worked, as we 
have said, on the hypothesis that the only choice lay between 
the Vulgate rendering, ‘‘ God-inspired,’’ and their own ‘‘ God- 
imbued.’’ Ewald, as we have seen, argues (and as we think 
rightly) that ‘‘God-inspired”’ is scarcely consonant with the 
word-form, but would have required something like Oeéu- 
mvevoTos. Similarly we may observe Dr. Cremer in the second 
edition of his ‘‘ Lexicon”’ (when he was arguing for the current 
conception) saying that ‘‘the formation of the word cannot 
be traced to the use of rvéw, but only of éumvéw,”’ and sup- 
porting this by the remark that ‘‘the simple verb is never 
used of divine action’’; and throughout his later article, 
operating on the presumption that the rendering ‘‘znspired”’ 
solely will come into comparison with his own newly pro- 
posed one. All this seems to be due, not merely to the 
traditional rendering of the word itself, but also to the con- 
ception of the nature of the divine action commonly ex- 
pressed by the term, ‘“‘inspiration,’’ and indeed to the doc- 
trine of Holy Scripture, dominant in the minds of these 
scholars.” If we will shake ourselves loose from these obscur- 


67 Two fundamental ideas, lying at the root of all their thinking of Scripture, 
seem to have colored somewhat their dealing with this term: the old Lutheran 


268 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ing prepossessions and consider the term without preoccu- 
pation of mind, it would seem that the simple rendering 
‘‘God-breathed’’ would commend itself powerfully to us: 
certainly not, withthe Vulgateand Luther, ‘‘ God-znbreathed,”’ 
since the preposition ‘‘in’”’ is wholly lacking in the term and 
is not demanded for the sense in any of its applications; but 
equally certainly not ‘‘God-imbued”’ or ‘‘God-infused”’ in 
the sense of imbued or infused with (rather than by) God, 
since, according to all analogy, as well as according to the 
simplest construction of the compound, the relation of 
‘““God”’ to the act expressed is that of ‘‘agent.’’ On any other 
supposition than that this third and assuredly the most 
natural alternative, ‘‘God-breathed,’’ was not before their 
minds, the whole treatment of Ewald and Dr. Cremer will 
remain somewhat inexplicable. 

Why otherwise, for example, should the latter have re- 
marked, that the ‘‘word must be traced to the use of éumvéw 
and not to the simple verb mvéw?’’ Dr. Cremer, it is true, 
adds, as we have said, that the simple verb is never used of 
divine action. In any case, however, this statement is over- 
drawn. Not only is tvéw applied in a physical sense to God 
in such passages of the LXX. as Ps. exlvii. 7 (18) (rveboer 76 
mvedua avrov) and Isa. xl. 24, and of Symmachus and Theo- 
dotion as Isa. xl. 7; and not only in the earliest Fathers is it 
used of the greatest gifts of Christ the Divine Lord, in such 
passages as Ign., “‘ Eph.” 17: — “For this cause the Lord re- 
ceived ointment on His head, that He might breathe incor- 
ruption upon His Church (iva rvén 7H ExkAnoia adbapciar)’’; 
but in what may be rightly called the normative passage, 


doctrine of the Word of God, and the modern rationalizing doctrine of the nature 
of the Divine influence exerted in the production of Scripture. On account of the 
latter point of view they seem determined not to find in Scripture itself any 
declaration that will shut them up to ‘‘a Philonian conception of Scripture” as 
the Oracles of God — the very utterances of the Most High. By the former they 
seem predisposed to discover in it declarations of the wonder-working power of 
the Word. The reader cannot avoid becoming aware of the influence of both these 
dogmatic conceptions in both Ewald’s and Cremer’s dealing with @eérvevaros. But 
it is not necessary to lay stress on this. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 269 


Gen. il. 7, it is practically justified, in its application to God, 
by the LX X. use of avon in the objective clause, and actually 
employed for the verb itself by both Symmachus and Theo- 
dotion. And if we will penetrate beneath the mere matter of 
the usage of a word to the conception itself, nothing could 
be more misleading than such a remark as Dr. Cremer’s. For 
surely there was no conception more deeply rooted in the 
Hebrew mind, at least, than that of the creative “breath of 
God’’; and this conception was assuredly not wholly un- 
known even in ethnic circles. To a Hebrew, at all events, the 
‘‘breath of God”’ would seem self-evidently creative; and no 
locution would more readily suggest itself to him as expres- 
sive of the Divine act of ‘‘making”’ than just that by which 
it would be affirmed that He breathed things into existence. 
The “‘breath of the Almighty”? — rvo7 ravroxpatropos — was 
traditionally in his mouth as the fit designation of the crea- 
tive act (Job xxxil. 8, xxxili. 4); and not only was he accus- 
tomed to think of man owing his existence to the breathing 
of the breath of God into his nostrils (Gen. 1. 7, especially 
Symm. Theod.) and of his life as therefore the ‘‘breath of 
God” (rvetua Oetov, LX X., Job xxvii. 8), which God needs 
but to draw back to Himself that all flesh should perish (Job 
xxxiv. 14): but he conceived also that it was by the breath of 
God’s mouth (rvetuare Tod ormparTos, Ps. xxxiil. 6), that all the 
hosts of the heavens were made, and by the sending forth of 
His breath, (avetdja, Ps. civ. 30) that the multiplicity of ani- 
mal life was created. By His breath even (rvon, Job xxxvii. 
10), he had been told, the ice is formed; and by His breath 
(rvevua, Isa. xi. 5, ef. Job iv. 9) all the wicked are consumed. 
It is indeed the whole conception of the Spirit of God as the 
executive of the Godhead that is involved here: the concep- 
tion that it is the Spirit of God that is the active agent in the 
production of all that is. To the Hebrew consciousness, cre- 
ation itself would thus naturally appear as, not indeed an 
‘‘inspiration,’”’ and much less an ‘‘infusion of the Divine 
essence,” but certainly a ‘‘spiration’’; and all that exists 
would appeal to it as, therefore, in the proper sense the- 


270 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


opneustic, i. e., simply, ‘‘breathed by God,’’ produced by 
the creative breath of the Almighty, the avo ravroxparopos. 

This would not, it needs to be remembered, necessarily 
imply an ‘‘immediate creation,’’ as we call it. When Elihu 
declares that it is the breath of the Almighty that has given 
him life or understanding (Job xxxil. 8, xxxill. 4), he need 
not be read as excluding the second causes by which he was 
brought into existence; nor need the Psalmist (civ. 30) be 
understood to teach an ‘‘immediate creation’”’ of the whole 
existing animal mass. But each certainly means to say that 
it is God who has made all these things, and that by His 
breath: He breathed them into being — they are all @eé7- 
vevotot. So far from the word presenting a difficulty there- 
fore from the point of view of its conception, it is just, after 
the nature of Greek compounds, the appropriate crystalli- 
zation into one concise term of a conception that was a ruling 
idea in every Jewish mind. Particularly, then, if we are to 
suppose (with both Ewald and Cremer) that the word is a 
coinage of Paul’s, or even of Hellenistic origin, nothing could 
be more natural than that it should have enshrined in it the 
Hebraic conviction that God produces all that He would 
bring into being by a mere breath. From this point of view, 
therefore, there seems no occasion to seek beyond the bare 
form of the word itself for a sense to attribute to it. If we 
cannot naturally give it the meaning of ‘‘God-znspired,”’ we 
certainly do not need to go so far afield as to attribute to it 
the sense of ‘‘filled with God’”’: the natural sense which be- 
longs to it by virtue of its formation, and which is com- 
mended to us by the analogy of like compounds, is also most 
consonant with the thought-forms of the circles in which it 
perhaps arose and certainly was almost exclusively used. 
What the word naturally means from this point of view also, 
is ‘‘God-spirated,”’ ‘‘God-breathed,” ‘‘produced by the cre- 
ative breath of the Almighty.”’ 

Thus it appears that such a conception as ‘‘ God-breathed ”’ 
lies well within the general circle of ideas of the Hellenistic 
writers, who certainly most prevailingly use the word. An 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 271 


application of this conception to Scripture, such as is made 
in}II Tim. iii. 16, was no less consonant with the ideas con- 
cerning the origin and nature of Scripture which prevailed in 
the circles out of which that epistle proceeded. This may in- 
deed be fairly held to be generally conceded. 

The main object of Ewald’s earlier treatment of this pas- 
sage, to be sure, was to void the word @edmvevoros of all impli- 
cation as to the origination of Scripture. By assigning to it 
the sense of ‘‘ God-pervaded,”’ ‘‘full of God’s Spirit,’’ he sup- 
posed he had made it a description of what Scripture is, 
without the least suggestion of how it came to be such; and 
he did not hesitate accordingly, to affirm that it had nothing 
whatever to say as to the origin of Scripture.” But he after- 
wards, as we have already pointed out, saw the error of this 
position, and so far corrected it as to explain that, of course, 
the term @ed7vevoros includes in itself the implication that the 
words so designated are spoken by the Spirit of God or by 
men inspired by God — in accordance with what is repeatedly 
said elsewhere in Scripture, as, for example, in II Pet. i. 21 — 
yet still to insist that it throws its chief emphasis rather on 
the nature than the origin of these words.® And he never 
thought of denying that in the circles in which the word was 
used in application to Scripture, the idea of the origination 
of Scripture by the act of God was current and indeed domi- 
nant. Philo’s complete identification of Scripture with the 
spoken word of God was indeed the subject under treatment 
by him, when he penned the note from which we have last 
quoted; and he did not fail explicitly to allow that the con- 
ceptions of the writer of the passage in I] Timothy were very 
closely related to those of Philo. ‘‘It is certainly undeniable,” 
he writes, ‘‘that the new term edmvevo7os, II Tim. iti. 16, is 
intended to express very much what Philo meant, and did 
not yet know how to say sharply by means of so compressed 
and direct a term’’; and again, in another place, “‘this term, 
no doubt, embodies only what is everywhere presupposed by 


68 ‘ Jahrb. f. bibl. Wissenschaft,” vil. 88, 114. 
69 ““Geschichte des Volkes Israel,” i. 245, note. 


ya bh REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Philo as to the Scriptures, and is repeatedly expressed by him 
in other words; yet his usage is not yet so far developed; and 
it is in accordance with this that in the New Testament, too, 
it is only one of the latest writings which uses the term in this 
way.” ” 

It would seem, to be sure, that it is precisely this affinity 
with Philo’s conception of Scripture which Dr. Cremer wishes 
to exclude in his treatment of the term. ‘‘ Let it be added,”’ 
he writes, near the close of the extract from his Herzog article 
which we have given above, ‘‘that the expression ‘breathed 
by God, inspired by God,’ though an outgrowth of the Bibli- 
cal idea, certainly, so far as it is referred to the prophecy 
which does not arise out of the human will (II Pet. i. 20), yet 
can scarcely be applied to the whole of the rest of Scripture 
— unless we are to find in II Tim. ii. 16 the expression of a 
conception of sacred Scripture similar to the Philonian.’’ And 
a little later he urges against the testimony of the exegetical 
tradition to the meaning of the word, that it was affected by 
the conceptions of Alexandrian Judaism — that is, he sug- 
gests, practically of heathenism. There obviously lies beneath 
this mode of representation an attempt to represent the idea 
of the nature and origin of Scripture exhibited in the New 
Testament, as standing in some fundamental disaccord with 
that of the Philonian tracts; and the assimilation of the con- 
ception expressed in II Tim. ii. 16 to the latter as therefore 
its separation from the former. Something like this is affirmed 
also by Holtzmann when he writes: ™ ‘‘It is accordingly clear 
that the author shares the Jewish conception of the purely 
supernatural origin of the Scriptures in its straitest accepta- 
tion, according to which, therefore, the theopneusty is as- 
cribed immediately to the Scriptures themselves, and not 
merely, as in II Pet. i. 21, to their writers; and so far as the 
thing itself is concerned there is nothing incorrect implied 
in the translation, tota Scriptura.’ The notion that the Bibli- 
cal and the Philonian ideas of Scripture somewhat markedly 


70) Jabrh.,1etc,,01x; 92. 
71 “Die Pastoralbriefe ”’ u. s. w., p. 163. 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 273 


differ is apparently common to the two writers: only Holtz- 
mann identifies the idea expressed in II Tim. iil. 16 with the 
Philonian, and therefore pronounces it to be a mark of late 
origin for that epistle; while Cremer wishes to detach it from 
the Philonian, that he may not be forced to recognize the 
Philonian conception as possessing New Testament author- 
ization. 

No such fundamental difference between the Philonian 
and New Testament conceptions as is here erected, however, 
can possibly be made out; though whatever minor differ- 
ences may be traceable between the general New Testament 
conception and treatment of Scripture and that of Philo, it 
remains a plain matter of fact that no other general view of 
Scripture than the so-called Philonian is discernible in the 
New Testament, all of whose writers — as is true of Jesus 
Himself also, according to His reported words, — consist- 
ently look upon the written words of Scripture as the express 
utterances of God, owing their origin to His direct spiration 
and their character to this their divine origin. It is peculiarly 
absurd to contrast II Pet. 1. 21 with II Tim. iii. 16 (as Holtz- 
mann does explicitly and the others implicitly), on the ground 
of a difference of conception as to ‘‘inspiration,’’ shown in the 
ascription of inspiration in the former passage to the writers, 
in the latter immediately to the words of Scripture. It is, on 
the face of it, the ‘‘word of prophecy’’ to which Peter as- 
cribes divine surety; it is written prophecy which he declares 
to be of no “‘private interpretation”’; and if he proceeds to 
exhibit how God produced this sure written word of prophecy 
—viz., through men of God carried onward, apart from 
their own will, by the determining power of the Holy Ghost ” 
— surely this exposition of the mode of the divine action in 
producing the Scriptures can only by the utmost confusion 
of ideas be pleaded as a denial of the fact that the Scriptures 
were produced by the Divine action. To Peter as truly as to 
Paul, and to the Paul of the earlier epistles as truly as to the 


2 For the implications of the term depéduevor here (as distinguished from ay6- 
pevot) consult the fruitful discussion of the words in Schmidt’s “‘Synonymik.” 


274 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Paul of II Timothy, or as to Philo himself, the Scriptures are 
the product of the Divine Spirit, and would be most appro- 
priately described by the epithet of ‘‘God-breathed,”’ 1. e., 
produced by the breath, the inspiration, of God. 

The entire distinction which it is sought to erect between 
the New Testament and the Philonic conceptions of Scrip- 
ture, as if to the New Testament writers the Scriptures were 
less the oracles of God than to Philo, and owed their origin 
less directly to God’s action, and might therefore be treated 
as less divine in character or operation, hangs in the mere 
air. There may be fairly recognized certain differences be- 
tween the New Testament and the Philonic conceptions of 
Scripture; but they certainly do not move in this fundamental 
region. The epithet ‘‘God-breathed,” “produced by the cre- 
ative breath of the Almighty,” commends itself, therefore, as 
one which would lie near at hand and would readily express 
the fundamental view as to the origination of Scripture cur- 
rent among the whole body of New Testament writers, as 
well as among the whole mass of their Jewish contemporaries, 
amid whom they were bred. The distinction between the in- 
spiration of the writers and that of the record, is a subtlety 
of later times of which they were guiltless: as is also the 
distinction between the origination of Scripture by the action 
of the Holy Ghost and the infusing of the Holy Spirit into 
Scriptures originating by human activity. To the writers of 
this age of simpler faith, the Scriptures are penetrated by 
God because they were given by God: and the question of 
their effects, or even of their nature, was not consciously 
separated from the question of their origin. The one sufficient 
and decisive fact concerning them to these writers, inclusive 
of all else and determinative of all else that was true of them 
as the Word of God, was that they were ‘‘God-given,”’ or, 
more precisely, the product of God’s creative ‘‘breath.”’ 

In these circumstances it can hardly be needful to pause 
to point out in detail how completely this conception accords 
with the whole New Testament doctrine of Scripture, and 
with the entire body of phraseology currently used in it to 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE” 2795 


express its divine origination. We need only recall the decla- 
rations that the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture (Heb. 
ili. 7, x. 15), ‘“‘in whom”’ it is, therefore, that its human 
authors speak (Matt. xxii. 483; Mark xii. 36), because it is 
He that speaks what they speak ‘‘through them”’ (Acts i. 
16, iv. 25), they being but the media of the prophetic word 
GViattate22 11615) tie sive 14) vill. 17; xis D7 ex Soexxi 4) 
xxiv. 15, xxvii. 9, Luke xviii. 31, Acts ii. 16, xxvii. 25, Rom. 
i. 2, Luke i. 76, Acts i. 16, iii. 18, 21). The whole underlying 
conception of such modes of expression is in principle set 
forth in the command of Jesus to His disciples that, in their 
times of need, they should depend wholly on the Divine 
Spirit speaking in them (Matt. x. 20; Mark xiii. 11; ef. Luke 
1.41, 67, xii. 12; Acts iv. 8): and perhaps even more decidedly 
still in Peter’s description of the prophets of Scripture as 
“‘borne by the Holy Ghost,’’ as mvevwatddopor, whose words 
are, therefore, of no ‘‘private interpretation,’ and of the 
highest surety (II Pet. i. 21). In all such expressions the main 
affirmation is that Scripture, as the product of the activity 
of the Spirit, is just the ‘‘breath of God’’; and the highest 
possible emphasis is laid on their origination by the divine 
agency of the Spirit. The primary characteristic of Scripture 
in the minds of the New Testament writers is thus revealed 
as, In a word, its Divine origin. 

That this was the sole dominating conception attached 
from the beginning to the term @eémvevoros as an epithet of 
Scripture, is further witnessed by the unbroken exegetical 
tradition of its meaning in the sole passage of the New Testa- 
ment in which it occurs. Dr. Cremer admits that such is the 
exegetical tradition, though he seeks to break the weight of 
this fact by pleading that the unanimity of the patristic 
interpretation of the passage is due rather to preconceived 
opinions on the part of the Fathers as to the nature of Scrip- 
ture, derived from Alexandrian Judaism, than to the natural 
effect on their minds of the passage itself. Here we are pointed 
to the universal consent of Jewish and Christian students of 
the Word as to the divine origin of the Scriptures they held 


276 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


in common — a fact impressive enough of itself — as a reason 
for discrediting the testimony of the latter as to the meaning 
of a fundamental passage bearing on the doctrine of Holy 
Scripture. One is tempted to ask whether it can be really 
proved that the theology of Alexandrian Judaism exercised 
so universal and absolute a dominion over the thinking of the 
Church, that it is likely to be due to its influence alone that 
the Christian doctrine of inspiration took shape, in despite 
(as we are told) of the natural implications of the Christian 
documents themselves. And one is very likely to insist that, 
whatever may be its origin, this conception of the divine 
origination of Scripture was certainly shared by the New 
Testament writers themselves, and may very well therefore 
have found expression in II Tim. ii. 16 — which would there- 
fore need no adjustment to current ideas to make it teach 
it. At all events, it is admitted that this view of the teaching 
of II Tim. ii. 16 is supported by the unbroken exegetical 
tradition; and this fact certainly requires to be taken into | 
consideration in determining the meaning of the word. 

It is quite true that Dr. Cremer in one sentence does not 
seem to keep in mind the unbrokenness of the exegetical tra- 
dition. We read: ‘‘ Origen also, in ‘ Hom. 21 in Jerem.’, seems 
so [i. e., as Dr. Cremer does] to understand it [that is, 
dedrvevaTos |: — sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem spirant.”’ 
The unwary reader may infer from this that these words of 
Origen are explanatory of II Tim. ii. 16, and that they there- 
fore break the exegetical tradition and show that Origen as- 
signed to that passage the meaning that ‘‘the Holy Scriptures 
breathe out the plenitude of the Spirit.’’ Such is, however, 
not the case. Origen is not here commenting on II Tim. iii. 16, 
but only freely expressing his own notion as to the nature of 
Scripture. His words here do not, therefore, break the con- 
stancy of the exegetical tradition, but at the worst only the 
universality of that Philonian conception of Scripture, to the 
universality of which among the Fathers, Dr. Cremer attrib- 
utes the unbrokenness of the exegetical tradition. What re- 
sults from their adduction is, then, not a weakening of the 


“ GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 77 


patristic testimony to the meaning of Oedrvevoros in II Tim. 
i. 16, but (at the worst) a possible hint that Dr. Cremer’s 
explanation of the unanimity of that testimony may not, 
after all, be applicable. When commenting on II Tim. iii. 16, 
Origen uniformly takes the word Oeémvevaros as indicatory of 
the origin of Scripture; though when himself speaking of 
what Scripture is, he may sometimes speak as Dr. Cremer 
would have him speak. It looks as if his interpretation of 
II Tim. ii. 16 were expository of its meaning to him rather 
than impository of his views on it. Let us, by way of illus- 
tration, place a fuller citation of Origen’s words, in the pas- 
sage adduced by Dr. Cremer, side by side with a passage 
directly dealing with II Tim. iii. 16, and note the result. 


Secundum istiusmodi expositiones decet sacras litteras credere nee 
unum quidem apicem habere vacuum sapientia Dei. Qui enim mihi 
homini precipit dicens: Non apparebis ante conspectum meum vacuus, 
multo plus hoc ipse agit, ne aliquid vacuum loquatur. Ex plenitudine 
ejus accipientes prophets, ea, que erant de plenitudine sumpta, 
cecinerunt: et idcirco sacra volumina spiritus plenitudinem spirant, 
nihilque est sive in prophetia, sive in lege, sive in evangelio, sive in 
apostolo, quod non a plenitudine divine majestatis descendat. Quam- 
obrem spirant in scripturis sanctis hodieque plenitudinis verba. Spi- 
rant autem his, qui habent et oculos ad videnda ccelestia et aures ad 
audienda divina, et nares ad ea, que sunt plenitudinis, sentienda 
(Origen, ‘‘in Jeremiam Homilia,” xxi, 2. Wirceburg ed., 1785, ix, 733). 


Here Origen is writing quite freely: and his theme is the 
divine fullness of Scripture. There is nothing in Scripture 
which is vain or empty and all its fullness is derived from 
Him from whom it is dipped by the prophets. Contrast his 
manner, now, when he is expounding II Tim. i. 16. 


“Let us not be stupefied by hearing Scriptures which we do not 
understand; but let it be to us according to our faith, by which also 
we believe that every Scripture because it is theopneustic (réca ypad} 
deorvevotos otca) is profitable. For you must needs admit one of two 
things regarding these Scriptures: either that they are not theopneus- 
tic since they are not profitable, as the unbeliever takes it; or, as a 
believer, you must admit that since they are theopneustic, they are 


278 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


profitable. It is to be admitted, of course, that the profit is often re- 
ceived by us unconsciously, just as often we are assigned certain food 
for the benefit of the eyes, and only after two or three days does the 
digestion of the food that was to benefit the eyes give us assurance by 
trial that the eyes are benefited. . . . So, then, believe also concerning 
the divine Scriptures, that thy soul is profited, even if thy understand- 
ing does not perceive the fruit of the profit that comes from the letters, 
from the mere bare reading”’ [Origen, “‘ Hom. XX in Josuam”’ 2, in 
J. A. Robinson’s Origen’s ‘‘ Philocalia,”’ p. 63). 


It is obvious that here Origen does not understand II Tim. 
ii. 16, to teach that Scripture is inspired only because it is 
profitable, and that we are to determine its profitableness 
first and its inspiration therefrom; what he draws from the 
passage is that Scripture is profitable because it is inspired, 
and that though we may not see in any particular case how, 
or even that, it is profitable, we must still believe it to be 
profitable because it is inspired, i. e., obviously because it is 
given of God for that end. 

It seemed to be necessary to adduce at some length these 
passages from Origen, inasmuch as the partial adduction of 
the unwary reader. But there appears to be no need of multi- 
plying passages from the other early expositors of II Tim. 
ill. 16, seeing that it is freely confessed that the exegetical 
tradition runs all in one groove. We may differ as to the 
weight we allow to this fact; but surely as a piece of testi- 
mony corroborative of the meaning of the word derived from 
other considerations, it is worth noting that it has from the 
beginning been understood only in one way — even by those, 
such as Origen and we may add Clement, who may not them- 
selves be absolutely consistent in preserving the point of 
view taught them in this passage.” 


73 Cf. Prof. Schulze, loc. cit.: “‘Further, it should not be lost sight of (and 
Dr. Cremer does not do so) how the Church in its defenders has understood this 
word. There can be no doubt that in the conflict with Montanism, the traditional 
doctrine of theopneusty was grounded in the conception of Oeérveveros, but never 
that of the Scriptures breathing out the Spirit of God. The passage which Cremer 
adduces from Origen gives no interpretation of this word, but only points to a 
quality of Scripture consequent on their divine origination by the Holy Spirit: 


“GOD-INSPIRED SCRIPTURE ” 279 


The final test of the sense assigned to any word is, of 
course, derived from its fitness to the context in which it is 
found. And Dr. Cremer does not fail to urge with reference 
to Beorvevoros in II Tim. iii. 16, that the meaning he assigns 
to it corresponds well with the context, especially with the 
succeeding clauses; as well as, he adds, with the language 
elsewhere in the New Testament, as, for example, in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, where what Scripture says is spoken 
of as the utterance, the saying of the Holy Ghost, with which 
he would further compare even Acts xxviii. 25. 

That the words of Scripture are conceived, not only in 
Hebrews but throughout the New Testament, as the utter- 
ances of the Holy Ghost is obvious enough and not to be 
denied. But it is equally obvious that the ground of this con- 
ception is everywhere the ascription of these words to the 
Holy Ghost as their responsible author: littera scripta manet 
and remains what it was when written, viz., the words of 
the writer. The fact that all Scripture is conceived as a body 
of Oracles and approached with awe as the utterances of God 
certainly does not in the least suggest that these utterances 
may not be described as God-given words or throw a preference 
for an interpretation of 6eérvevaros which would transmute it 
into an assertion that they are rather God-giving words. 

And the same may be said of the contextual argument. 
Naturally, if Qeé7vevoros means ‘‘ God-giving,’’ it would as an 
epithet or predicate of Scripture serve very well to lay a 
foundation for declaring this ‘‘God-giving Scripture” also 
profitable, etc. But an equal foundation for this declaration 
is laid by the description of it as ‘‘God-given.’’ The passage 
just quoted from Origen will alone teach us this. All that 
can be said on this score for the new interpretation, therefore, 


and elsewhere when he adduces the rule of faith, the words run, quod per spiritum 
det sacre scripture conscripte sint, or a verbo det et spirita dei dicte sunt: Just as 
Clem. Alex. also, when, in Coh. 71, he is commenting on the Pauline passage, 
takes the word in the usual way, and yet, like Origen, makes an inference from 
the God-likeness (as @eoroetv) in Plato’s manner, from the whole passage — 
though not deriving it from the word itself. For the use of the word in Origen, we 
need to note: Sel. in Ps., ii. 527; Hom. in Joh., vi. 134, Ed. de la R.” 


280 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


is that it also could be made accordant with the context; and 
as much, and much more, can be said for the old. We leave 
the matter in this form, since obviously a detailed interpreta- 
tion of the whole passage cannot be entered into here, but 
must be reserved for a later occasion. It may well suffice to 
say now that obviously no advantage can be claimed for the 
new interpretation from this point of view. The question is, 
after all, not what can the word be made to mean, but what 
does it mean; and the witness of its usage elsewhere, its form 
and mode of composition, and the sense given it by its readers 
from the first, supply here the primary evidence. Only if the 
sense thus commended to us were unsuitable to the context 
would we be justified in seeking further for a new interpreta- 
tion — thus demanded by the context. This can by no means 
be claimed in the present instance, and nothing can be de- 
manded of us beyond showing that the more natural current 
sense of the word is accordant with the context. 

The result of our investigation would seem thus, certainly, 
to discredit the new interpretation of Oedmvevaros offered by 
Ewald and Cremer. From all points of approach alike we 
appear to be conducted to the conclusion that it is primarily 
expressive of the origination of Scripture, not of its nature 

rand much less of its effects. What is @edrvevaros is ‘‘God- 
breathed,” produced by the creative breath of the Almighty. 
And Scripture is called 6eé7vevaros in order to designate it as 
‘‘God-breathed,”’ the product of Divine spiration, the cre- 
ation of that Spirit who is in all spheres of the Divine activity 
| the executive of the Godhead. The traditional translation of 
the word by the Latin znspiratus a Deo is no doubt also dis- 
credited, if we are to take it at the foot of the letter. It does 
not express a breathing into the Scriptures by God. But the 
ordinary conception attached toit, whether among the Fathers 

Vor the Dogmaticians, is in general vindicated. What it affirms 
is that the Scriptures owe their origin to an activity of God 
the Holy Ghost and are in the highest and truest sense His 
creation. It is on this foundation of Divine origin that all the 
phigh attributes of Scripture are built. 


Vill 
pilD AYS.  SORTPTURE SAYS:” “GOD SAYS? 


ait 


ee 


ce 





pl DANY Ses SOORTRDURKISAYS: i GODsSAY Si} 


It would be difficult to invent methods of showing pro- 
found reverence for the text of Scripture as the very Word 
of God, which will not be found to be characteristic of the 
writers of the New Testament in dealing with the Old. Among 
the rich variety of the indications of their estimate of the 
written words of the Old Testament as direct utterances of 
Jehovah, there are in particular two classes of passages, each 
of which, when taken separately, throws into the clearest 
light their habitual appeal to the Old Testament text as to 
God Himself speaking, while, together, they make an irre- 
sistible impression of the absolute identification by their 
writers of the Scriptures in their hands with the living voice 
of God. In one of these classes of passages the Scriptures are 
spoken of as if they were God; in the other, God is spoken 
of as if He were the Scriptures: in the two together, God and 
the Scriptures are brought into such conjunction as to show 
that in point of directness of authority no distinction was 
made between them. 

Examples of the first class of passages are such as these: 
Gal. iii. 8, ‘‘ The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto 
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed’’ 
(Gen. xii. 1-3); Rom. ix. 17, ‘‘The Scripture saith unto 
Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up”’ 
(Ex. ix. 16). It was not, however, the Scripture (which did 
not exist at the time) that, foreseeing God’s purposes of 
grace in the future, spoke these precious words to Abraham, 
but God Himself in His own person: it was not the not yet 
existent Scripture that made this announcement to Pharaoh, 
but God Himself through the mouth of His prophet Moses. 
These acts could be attributed to ‘‘Scripture”’ only as the 


1 From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. x, 1899, pp. 472-510. 
283 


284 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


result of such a habitual identification, in the mind of the 
writer, of the text of Scripture with God as speaking, that it 
became natural to use the term “‘Scripture says,’’ when what 
was really intended was ‘‘ God, as recorded in Scripture, said.”’ 

Examples of the other class of passages are such as these: 
Matt. xix. 4, 5, ‘‘And he answered and said, Have ye not 
read that he which made them from the beginning made them 
male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave 
his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and the 
twain shall become one flesh?’ (Gen. i. 24); Heb. ii. 7, 
‘“Wherefore, even as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye shall 
hear his voice,’’ etc. (Ps. xev. 7); Acts iv. 24, 25, “Thou art 
God, who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why 
do the heathen rage and the peopleimagine vain things”’ (Ps. i. 
1); Acts xiii. 34, 35, ‘‘He that raised him up from the dead, 
now no more to return to corruption, ... hath spoken in this 
wise, I will give you the holy and sure blessings of David’’ 
(Isa. lv. 3); ‘‘because he saith also in another [ Psalm |], Thou 
wilt not give thy holy one to see corruption”’ (Ps. xvi. 10); 
Heb. i. 6, ‘‘ And when he again bringeth in the first born into 
the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship 
him” (Deut. xxxii. 48); ‘‘and of the angels he saith, Who 
maketh his angels wings, and his ministers a flame of fire’’ 
(Ps. civ. 4); “‘but of the Son, He saith, Thy throne, O God, 
is for ever and ever,” etc., (Ps. xlv. 7) and, ‘‘ Thou, Lord, in 
the beginning,”’ etc. (Ps. cii. 26). It is not God, however, in 
whose mouth these sayings are placed in the text of the Old 
Testament: they are the words of others, recorded in the text 
of Scripture as spoken to or of God. They could be attributed 
to God only through such habitual identification, in the 
minds of the writers, of the text of Scripture with the utter- 
ances of God that it had become natural to use the term 
‘God says”? when what was really intended was ‘‘Scripture, 
the Word of God, says.”’ 

The two sets of passages, together, thus show an absolute 
identification, in the minds of these writers, of ‘‘Scripture”’ 
with the speaking God. ) 


PED SAYS? 4 SCRIPTURE SAYS #712 GOD) SAYS ? 285 


In the same line with these passages are commonly ranged 
certain others, in which Scripture seems to be adduced with 
a subjectless \éyer or hyct, the authoritative subject — whether 
the divinely given Word or God Himself — being taken for 
granted. Among these have been counted such passages, for 
example, as the following: Rom. ix. 15, ‘‘For he saith to 
Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will 
have compassion on whom I have compassion”’ (Ex. xxxiii. 
19); Rom. xv. 10, ‘‘ And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, 
with his people” (Deut. xxxii. 43); and again, ‘‘ Praise the 
Lord, all ye Gentiles; and let all the people praise him”’ 
(Ps. evil. 1); Gal. iii. 16, ‘‘He saith not, And to seeds, as of 
many; but as of one, And to thy seed (Gen. xiii. 15), which is 
Christ’; Eph. iv. 8, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, When he ascended 
on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men” 
(Ps. Ixvili. 18); Eph. v. 14, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, Awake thou 
that sleepest and arise from the dead and Christ shall shine 
upon thee”’ (Isa. Ix. 1); I Cor. vi. 16, ‘‘ For the twain, saith 
he, shall become one flesh”’ (Gen. ii. 24); I Cor. xv. 27, ‘‘ But 
when he saith, All things are put in subjection”’ (Ps. viii. 7); 
II Cor. vi. 2, ‘‘For he saith, At an acceptable time, I heark- 
ened unto thee, and in a day of salvation did I succor thee”’ 
(Isa. xlix. 8); Heb. viii. 5, ‘‘ For see, saith he, that thou make 
all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in 
the mount” (Ex. xxv. 40); James iv. 6, ‘‘ Wherefore he saith, 
God resisteth the proud but giveth grace to the humble’”’ 
(Prov. ili. 34). 

There is room for difference of opinion, of course, whether 
all these passages are cases in point. And there has certainly 
always existed some difference of opinion among commenta- 
tors as to the proper subauditum in such instances as are 
allowed. The state of the case would seem to be fairly indi- 
cated by Alexander Buttmann, when he says: 


“The predicates Néye: or dyaiv are often found in the New Testa- 
ment in quotations, 6 6eds or even merely 7 ypadn being always to be 
supplied as subject; as I Cor. vi. 16, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. 11. 16, Eph. iv. 
8, v. 14, Heb. viii. 5, iv. 3 (etonxev). These subjects are also expressed, 


286 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


as in Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18, or to be supplied from the preceding 
context, as in Heb. 1. 5 segq.’’ ? 


Of the alternatives thus offered, Jelf apparently prefers the 
one: . 


“Tn the New Testament we must supply zpodnrns, 7 ypadn, 


mvedua, etc., before dyai, Neyer, wapTupet.”” ® 


Winer and Blass take the other: 


“The formulas of citation — deve, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. 11. 16, Eph. 
iv. 8 al., @noi, I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. vill. 5; etpnxe, Heb. iv. 4 (cf. the 
Rabbinical 781); waprupet, Heb. vil. 17 (efze, I Cor. xv. 27) — are 
probably in no instance impersonal in the minds of the New Testa- 
ment writers. The subject (6 eds) is usually contained in the context, 
either directly or indirectly; in I Cor. vi. 16 and Matt. xix. 5, ¢yoi, 
there is an apostolic ellipsis (of 6 Ads); in Heb. vil. 17, the best au- 
thorities have paprupetrat.”’ 4 


“In the formulas of citation such as Neyer, II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. ii. 
16, etc.; dnciv, I Cor. vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5; eipnxe, Heb. iv. 4 — 6 Oeés is 
to be understood (‘He says’); in II Cor. x. 10, dnciv (8 DE, etc. [7], 
‘one says’), appears to be a wrong reading for ¢aciv (B), unless per- 
haps a 71s has dropped out (but cp. Clem. Hom., x1. 9 ad init.).”’ * 


The commentators commonly range themselves with 
Winer and Blass. Thus, on Rom. ix. 15, Sanday and Head- 
lam comment: “‘Aéyer without a nominative for Oeds N€éyeu is 
a common idiom in quotations,’ referring to Rom. xv. 10 
as a parallel case. On Gal. i. 16, Meyer says: ‘‘sc. Océs, 
which is derived from the historical reference of the previous 
éppéOnoav, so well known to the reader’’; and Alford: ‘‘viz., 
He who gave the promises — God”’; and Sieffert: ‘‘ob Néyer 
sc. Oeos which flows out of the historical relation (known to 
the reader) of the preceding é€ppéOnoap (cf. Eph. iv. 8, v. 14).” 


2 “A Grammar of the New Testament Greek,” Thayer’s translation p. 134. 

§ Sec. 373, 3. 

4 Winer, Sec. 58, 9, y; p. 656 of Moulton’s translation. 

5 Blass’ ‘““Grammar of N, T. Greek”’; English translation by H. St. J. 
Thackeray, M.A., p. 75. 


PUSS AY Ss eo CRIPDURE SAYore 1GOD SAYS Y 287 


On Eph. iv. 8, Meyer’s comment runs: ‘‘Who says it (comp. 
v. 14) is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scrip- 
ture is. See on [ Cor. vi. 16; Gal. iii. 16; the supplying 7 
ypadn or To Tvedua must have been suggested by the context 
(Rom. xv. 10). The manner of citation with the simple éyer, 
obviously meant of God, has as its necessary presupposition, 
in the mind of the writer and readers, the Theopneustia of 
the Old Testament.’ Haupt, similarly: ‘‘The introduction of 
a citation with the simple Aéyer, with which, of course, ‘God’ 
is to be supplied as subject, not ‘the Scripture,’ is found in 
Paul again v. 14, II Cor. vi. 2, Rom. xv. 10; similarly dysct, 
I Cor. vi. 16 (etzev with the addition 6 6eds, II Cor. vi. 16).”’ 
A similar comment is given by Ellicott, who adds at Eph. v. 
14: “‘scil. 6 Oeds, according to the usual form of St. Paul’s 
quotations; see notes on chap. iv. 8 and on Gal. i. 16”: 
though on I Cor. vi. 16 he speaks with less decision: ‘It may 
be doubted what nominative is to be supplied to this prac- 
tically impersonal verb, whether 7 yoadn (comp. John vii. 
38, Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) or 6 deds (comp. Matt. xix. 5, IT Cor. 
vi. 2, where this nominative is distinctly suggested by the 
context): the latter is perhaps the more natural: comp. 
Winer, Gr., $58, 9, and notes on Eph. iv. 8.”’ On I Cor. vi. 
16, Edwards comments: ‘‘sc. 6 Oe6s, as in Rom. ix. 15. Cf. 
Matt. xix. 4, 5, where 6 woinoas supplies a nom. to eizev. Simi- 
larly in Philo and Barnabas ¢yct introduces citations from 
Scripture.’’? On ITI Cor. vi. 2, Waite says: ‘“‘A statement of 
God Himself is adduced”; and De Wette: “‘sc. 0e6s, who Him- 
self speaks.’’ On Heb. viii. 5, Bleek comments: ‘“‘That there 
is to be understood as the subject of dyai, not, as BOohme 
thinks, 7 ypad7n, but 6 6eds, can least of all be doubtful here, 
where actual words of God are adduced’’; and Weiss: ‘* This 
statement is now established (yap) by appeal to Ex. xxv. 40, 
which passage is characterized only by the interpolated g¢ycw 
(cf. Acts xxv. 22) as a divine oracle.... The subject of 
gyotly is, of course, God, neither 6 xpyuatiopos (Lun.) nor 7 
ypaohy (Bhm.).”’ On James iv. 6, Mayor comments: ‘The 
subject understood is probably God, as above, 1. 12, émnyyet- 


288 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


aro, and Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, where the same phrase occurs; 
others take it as 7 ypady. Cf. above, v. 5.’’ ® 

Most of these passages have, on the other hand, been ex- 
plained by some commentators on the supposition that it is 
» ypaoyn that is to be supplied, as has sufficiently appeared 
indeed from the controversial remarks in the notes quoted 
above. This circumstance may be taken as precluding the 
necessity of adducing examples here.’ Suffice it to say that 
those so filling in the subauditum are entirely at one with 
the commentators already quoted in looking upon the 
citations as treated by the New Testament writers as of 
divine authority, it being,.in their apprehension, all one in 
this regard whether the subauditum is conceived as 77 ypadn 
or as 0 @eds. 

In the meantime, however, there has occasionally showed 
itself a tendency to treat these subjectless verbs more or less 
as true impersonals. Thus we read in Delitzsch’s note on 
Heb. viii. 5: ‘For ‘see,’ saith He, i. e., 6 Ges, or taking gyno 
impersonally (that is, without a definite subject), ‘2 as sard’ 
(i. e., in Scripture), (Bernhardy, ‘Synt.,’ 419).”’ So Kern on 
James iv. 6 comments: ‘‘Aéyer here impersonaliter, instead of 
the foregoing Néyer } ypadn’’; and accordingly Beyschlag, in 
his recent commentary says: ‘‘to \éyet, 7 ypady is to be sup- 
plied, or it is to be taken with Kern impersonally.”’ Similarly 
Godet on I Cor. vi. 16 says: ‘‘The subject of the verb ¢ycir, 
says he, may be either Adam or Moses, or Scripture, or God 
Himself, or finally, as is shown by Heinrici, the verb may be 
a simple formula of quotation like our ‘Jé ts said.’ This form 
is frequently found in Philo.” * Some such usage as is here 


® So also Wandel: ‘‘James then cites the passage Prov. iii. 24, in which we 
must simply supply ‘God’ to deve.” 

7 As a single example, take, e. g., Oltramare, on Eph. iv. 8: “Av déye, scil. 
% yeapy: In accord with the extreme frequency with which the New Testament is 
cited, Paul often cites by saying simply déye (v. 14, Rom. xv. 10, II Cor. vi. 2, 
Gal. iu. 16; cf. Rom. iv. 3, x. 17, I Tim. v. 18), or dnot (I Cor. vi. 16; cf. Heb. viii. 
15), or eiwe (I Cor. xv. 27). He understands the subject, which is understood of 
itself, ypady or Geds (see Winer, Gr., p. 486).”’ 

$ Earlier still De Wette explained the phrase in a somewhat similar way. His 
note on Eph. v. 8 runs: “Old Testament support. 5:0 Aéyer] therefore (because 


ULES ANS wy oO La URE SAYS. 9 GOD SAY Sa 289 


supposed may seem actually to occur in the common text of 
Wisdom xv. 12° and II Cor. x. 10. But in both passages the 
true reading is probably ¢aciv; in neither instance is it clear 
that, if dnoiv be read, it has no subject implied in the context; 
if dnoiv be read and taken as equivalent to ¢daciv it still is not 
purely indefinite; and in any case the instances are not paral- 
lel, inasmuch as in neither of these passages is it Scripture, 
or indeed any document, that is adduced. 

The fact that a few very able commentators have taken 
this unlikely line of exposition would call for nothing more 
than this incidental remark, were not our attention attracted 
somewhat violently to it by the dogmatic tone and extremity 
of contention of a recent commentator who has adopted this 
opinion. We refer to Dr. T. K. Abbott’s comment on Eph. iv. 
8, in his contribution to “ The International Critical Commen- 
tary.” It runs to a considerable length, but as on this very 
account it opens out somewhat more fully than usual this 


Christ gives the gifts and according to the presupposition that all that concerns 
Christ is predicted in the Old Testament 7t is said, [heisst es] (cf. Gal. iii. 16, 
I Cor. vi. 16 — a formula of citation (also v. 14) like Jas. iv. 6, Acts xiii. 35, Heb. 
x. 5, not elsewhere found in the apostle (cf., however, II Cor. vi. 17)...” And 
again on Eph. v. 14 we read: ‘‘é.d ever | therefore it is said [heisst es ] (in the Scrip- 
tures). Cf. iv. 8.”’ He supposes that, in the latter passage, Paul confuses a cus- 
tomary application of Scripture with the very words of Scripture. 

9 Grimm’s note on the passage runs: ‘‘Instead of the rec. reading, ¢yoclv, 
Alex. Ephr., 157, 248, 296, Compl. have ¢aciv. Nevertheless the author may here 
return to the singular, referring to the potter before depicted (see the following 
verses). Or ¢yoit may stand impersonally, in the sense of ‘heisst es,’ ‘sagt man,’ 
Win., p. 462, 6th ed.; Miiller, ‘Philo’s Buch von d. Weltschépfung,’ p. 44.” Cf. 
further, below, p. 316. 

10 gnatv is placed by Tischendorf, Tregelles and Westcott and Hort in their 
texts: while ¢aciv is read by Lachmann and placed in their margins by Tregelles 
and Westcott and Hort. The former is read by SDEFGKLBP, etc., by the cursives, 
and by the Vulgate and Coptic versions, while the latter is the reading of B, Old 
Latin and Syriac. Heinrici pertinently remarks (in his own “Commentary,” 1887): 
“The reading ¢aciv, which Lachmann accepts, is just as strongly witnessed by B, 
the Itala and Peschitto as dnoitv (SDFG Vulg. Copt.) and it almost looks as if 
nov were a correction occasioned by the succeeding 6 rovodros (against Meyer).”’ 
Alford, who continues to read ¢noiv equally pertinently on that hypothesis, re- 
marks: “‘¢yciv, taken by Winer (Ed. 6, § 58, 96), De Wette and Meyer as im- 
personal, ‘heisst es,’ ‘men say’; but why should not the vcs of ver, 7, and 6 rowodros 
of ver. 11, be the subject?” See further below, p. 316. 


290 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


rather unwonted view of the construction, we shall venture 
to quote it 7 extenso. Dr. Abbott says: 


“Aid Neyer. ‘Wherefore it saith’ = ‘it is said.’ If any substantive 
is to be supplied, it is 4 ypady; but the verb may well be taken im- 
personally, just as in colloquial English one may often hear: ‘it says’ 
or the like. Many expositors supply, however, 6 Oeds. Meyer even says, 
‘Who says it is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scrip- 
ture is.! Similarly Alford and Ellicott." If it were St. Paul’s habit 
to introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by whomsoever 
spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 Oeds Neyer, then this 
supplement here might be defended. But it is not. In quoting he some- 
times says ever, frequently 4 ypad7 eye, at other times Aafid dAEyer, 
‘Hoatas Neyer. There is not a single instance in which 6 Oéés is either 
expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original con- 
text God is the speaker, as in Rom. ix. 15. Even when that is the case 


11 [See above, p. 287. ] 

12 [“ He (viz., God, whose word the Scriptures are. See reff. [1. e., Rom. xii. 8, 
II Cor. x. 18, iv. 18, 16 = Paul only], and: notes: not merely ‘it,’ es heisst, as, 
De Wette, al.: nor 4 ypad7: had it been the subject it must have been expressed, 
as in Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.) says (viz., Ps. Ixviii. 18, see below: not in some Chris- 
tian hymn, as Flatt and Storr — which would not agree with déye, nor with the 
treatment of the citation, which is plainly regarded as carrying the weight of 
Scripture.’’) ] 

18 [“* He saith,’ sc. 6 beds,, not 4 ypady. This latter nominative is several times 
inserted by St. Paul (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11, Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18), but is 
not therefore to be regularly supplied whenever there is an ellipsis (Bos, Ellips., 
p. 54) without reference to the nature of the passages. The surest and in fact 
only guide is the context; when that affords no certain hint, we fall back upon the 
natural subject, 6 6e6s, whose words the Scriptures are; see notes on Gal. iii. 16.” 
See further above, p. 287. At Gal. iii. 16, Ellicott had said: ‘‘‘He saith not’; not 
» yeadn (Bos, Ellips., p. 54), as in Rom. xv. 10 — where the subst. is supplied 
from yéypamra, ver. 9—or 76 rvedua (Riick., Winer, Gr., §39, 1), which appears 
arbitrary, but the natural subject 6 6es, as in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, and (¢not) I Cor. 
vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5. So apparently Syr., which here inserts ili after \éye.’”’ The 
passage referred to in Bos (London ed. of 1825, pp. 57, 58) is as follows: ‘‘In the 
New Testament, where the Scripture of the Old Testament is cited, dnot or eye 
often occurs with 7 ypady understood — a word which actually stands in other 
passages: I Cor. vi. 16, Eph. v. 14, Gal. ii. 16. The same thing occurs in the Greek 
fathers. Marcus Eremita, in his earlier aphorisms, No. 106, ovdels, got, orpa- 
Tevouevos EuTéxeTat Tals TOD Biov mpayyareiats, ‘No one, says (the Scripture, I Tim. 
ll. 4) going a-soldiering is entangled in the affairs of this life.’ So, No. 134: ¢not 
yap, 6 Wav éaurdovy rarewwnoera, ‘For, says (Scripture), he that exalteth himself 
shall be brought low.’ There may be also understood pro re nata ebayyedorns, 
mpopnr 7s, adarodos: but the other is more general and suits excellently. Schoettg.’’ J 


SLISSAYS 7) SpSCRIPT URW SAYS27— GOD) SAYS? 291 


he does not hesitate to use a different subject, as in Rom. x. 19, 20: 
‘Moses saith,’ ‘Isaiah is very bold, and saith’; Rom. ix. 17, ‘The 
Scripture saith to Pharaoh.’ 

“This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing upon 
the apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of expression consistent only 
with the extreme view of verbal inspiration. When Meyer (followed 
by Alford and Ellicott) says that 4 ypad7 must not be supplied unless 
it 1s given by the context, the reply is obvious, namely, that, as above 
stated, 7 ypad7 Neyer does, in fact, often occur, and therefore the 
apostle might have used it here, whereas 6 Oeds \éyer does not occur 
(except in cases unlike this), and we have reason to believe could not 
be used by St. Paul here. It is some additional confirmation of this 
that both here and in chap. v. 14 (if that is a Biblical quotation) he 
does not hesitate to make important alterations. This is the view taken 
by Braune, Macpherson, Moule; the latter, however, adding that for 
St. Paul ‘the word of the Scripture and the word of its Author are 
convertible terms.’ 

“It is objected that although ¢nai is used impersonally, eye is 
not. The present passage and chap. v. 14 are enough to prove the 
usage for St. Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles where 
this sense is at least applicable; cf. Rom. xv. 10, where Aéeyer is parallel 
to yeypamra in ver. 9; Gal. ii. 16, where it corresponds to épp7Onoav. 
But, in fact, the impersonal use of ¢yct in Greek authors is quite dif- 
ferent, namely = dav, ‘they say’ (so II Cor. x. 10). Classical authors 
had no opportunity of using déyer as it is used here, as they did not 
possess any collection of writings which could be referred to as 4 
ypabén, or by any like word. They could say: 6 vouos Neyer and 7d 
Neyouevov.”’ 


It is not, it will be observed, the fact that Dr. Abbott de- 
cides against the subauditum, 6 eds, in these passages, which 
calls for remark. As he himself points out, many others have 
been before him in this. It is the extremity of his opinion that 
first of all attracts attention. For it is to be noticed that, 
though he sometimes speaks as if he understood an implied 
h ypadn, or some like term, as the subject of Aéye, that is not 
his real contention. What he proposes is to take the verb 
wholly indefinitely — as equivalent to ‘‘it is said,” as if the 

14 [The text actually has ‘‘ver. 14,’’ but we venture to correct the obvious 
slip. ] 


292 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


source of the quotation were unimportant and its authority 
insignificant. This interpretation of his proposal is placed be- 
yond doubt by his remarks on chap. v. 14. There we read: 


“Aid Neyer. ‘Wherefore it is said.’ It is generally held that this 
formula introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. ... The 
difficulties disappear when we recognize that Aeye: need not be taken 
to mean 6 Oeds A€yet — an assertion which has been shown in iv. 8 to 
be untenable. It means, ‘it says,’ or ‘it is said,’ and the quotation may 
probably be from some liturgical formula or hymn — a supposition 
with which its rhythmical character agrees very well. . . . Theodoret 
mentions this opinion. .. . Stier adopts a similar view, but endeavors 
to save the supposed limitation of the use of \éyer by saying that in 
the Church the Spirit speaks. As there are in the Church prophets and 
prophetic speakers and poets, so there are liturgical expressions and 
hymns which are holy words. Comparing vv. 18, 19, Col. i. 16, it 
may be said that the apostle is here giving us an example of this self- 
admonition by new spiritual songs.”’ 


So extreme an opinion, as we have already hinted, natu- 
rally finds, however, little support in the commentators, even 
in those quoted to buttress it, — of course, in its funda- 
mental point. Braune says: ‘‘We must naturally supply 7 
ypaoy, the Scripture, with \éye, ‘saith,’ (James iv. 6, Rom. 
xv. 10, Gal. 111. 16, I Cor. vi. 16: dyciv), and not 6 Oeds (Meyer, 
Schenkel *), or 6 \éywv (Bleek: the writer)’: to which Dr. 
M. T. Riddle, his translator, however, adds: ‘‘ The fact that 
Paul frequently supplies 7 ypad7 (Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11, 
Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18) is against Braune’s view; for in some 
of these passages there is a reason for its insertion (see 
“Romans,” p. 314), and as the Scriptures are God’s Word 
(Meyer), the natural aim and obvious subject is 6 Oeds. So 
Alford, Ellicott and most.’’ Moule’s comment runs: ‘‘ Where- 
fore he saith] Or it, i. e., the Scripture, saith. St. Paul’s usage 

6 [With \eye God is to be supplied as subject. From this way of adducing 
it, it is already clear that the cited words cannot be taken from a Christian hymn 
in use in the Church at Ephesus (Storr, Flatt), but must belong to the sacred, 
God-given Scripture.” Accordingly at v. 14 he says: ‘‘In accordance with the 


formula (eye, chap. iv. 8) usual in adducing Scripture, it can scarcely be doubtful 
that the apostle intended to cite an Old Testament passage.’’ ] 


SLE SAYS ie SCRIPTURE SAYS: 2GOD, SAYS 7 293 


in quotation leaves the subject of the verb undetermined 
here and in similar cases (see, e. g., chap. v. 14%). For him 
the word of the Scripture and the word of its author are con- 
vertible terms.’’ Macpherson alone, of those appealed to by 
Dr. Abbott, supports, in a somewhat carelessly written note, 
the indefinite interpretation put forward by Dr. Abbott, — 
being misled apparently by remarks of Lightfoot’s and West- 
cott’s. His comment runs: 


‘““A very simple quotation formula is here employed, the single 
word \eyer. It is also similarly used (chap. v. 14; II Cor. vi. 2; Gal. iii. 
16; Rom. xv. 10).1”7 This word is frequently employed in the fuller 
formula, The Scripture saith, eye. 7 ypady (Rom. iv. 3, x. 11, xi. 2; 
Jas. 11. 23, etc.); or the name of the writer of the particular scripture, 
Ksaias, David, the Holy Spirit, the law (Rom. xv. 12; Acts xii. 35; 
Heb. il. 7; I Cor. xii. 34, etc.).8 Of Never, doi, elpnxe, and similar 
words thus used, Winer (“‘Grammar,”’ p. 656, 1882) says that prob- 
ably in no instance are they impersonal in the minds of the New 
Testament writers, but that the subject, 6 60s, is somewhere in the 
context, and is to be supplied. On the contrary, Lightfoot, in his note 
on Gal. ii. 16, remarks that Neyer, like the Attic dnt, seems to be used 
impersonally, the nominative being lost sight of. In our passage we 
have no nominative in the context which we can supply, and it seems 
better to render the phrase impersonally, [¢ 7s said. The same word 
is used very frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but always with 
God or Christ understood from the immediate context. Westcott very 
correctly remarks (p. 457) that the use of the formula in Eph. iv. 8, 
v. 14, seems to be of a different kind.” * 

146 The comment there is simply: “‘he saith] or possibly zt (the Scripture) 
saith.” 17 [The parenthetical marks should doubtless be removed. ] 

18 [This sentence seems formally incomplete; probably ‘‘is frequently em- 
ployed” is to be supplied from the preceding clause. ] 

19 [This scarcely gives a complete view of Winer’s remark: he says that ‘‘the 
subject 6 6eés) is wswally contained in the context, either directly or indtrectly,”’ 
and proceeds to adduce cases of ellipsis. ] 

20 [What Westcott apparently says is not that “‘the two passages in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, 6.6 \éye) appear to be different in kind”’ 
from the usage of Hebrews, but from the cases in the rest of the New Testament, 
where God is the subject of \éye indeed, but “‘the reference is to words directly 
spoken by God.” He possibly means, ‘‘ different in kind” from the usage both of 
Hebrews and of the rest of the New Testament: but he does not seem to say this 
directly. See post, p. 305. ] 


294 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Outside of these commentators quoted by himself, how- 
ever, Prof. Abbott’s extreme view has (as has, indeed, al- 
ready incidentally appeared) the powerful support of Light- 
foot and Heinrici. The former expresses his opinion not only in 
his note on Gal. 11. 16, to which Macpherson refers, but more 
fully and argumentatively in his note on I Cor. vi. 16 printed 
in his posthumous “ Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul.” In the 
former of these places he says: 


“‘ob Neyer Seems to be used impersonally, like the Attic @yci in 
quoting legal documents, the nominative being lost sight of. If so, we 
need not inquire whether 6 6eds or 7 ypadn is to be understood. Comp. 
Aevyet, Rom. xv. 10, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; and dnciv, I Cor. vi. 16, II Cor. 
XO Ol LE) ea 


In the latter, speaking more at large ‘‘as to the authority 


assigned to the passage’’ quoted by St. Paul, he says: 


‘““What are we to understand by ¢yciv? Is 6 beds to be supplied or 
7 ypabn ? To this question it is safest to reply that we cannot decide. 
The fact is that, like Neyer, énoitv when introducing a quotation seems 
to be used impersonally. This usage is common in Biblical Greek 
(Aevyer, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. ii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14; énotv, Heb. viii. 5, 
II Cor. x. 10 (v. l.), more common in classical Greek. Alford, after 
Meyer, objects to rendering ¢yciv impersonally here, as contrary to 
St. Paul’s usage. But the only other occurrence of the phrase in St. 
Paul is II Cor. x. 10, where he is not introducing Scripture, but the 
objections of human critics and of more than one critic. If then ¢nciv 
be read there at all, it must be impersonal. The apostle’s analogous 
use of eye points to the same conclusion. In Eph. v. 14 it introduces 
a quotation which is certainly not in Scripture, and apparently be- 
longed to an early Christian hymn. We gather therefore that St. 
Paul’s usage does not suggest any restriction here to 6 eds or 7 ypadn. 
But we cannot doubt from the context that the quotation is meant to 
be authoritative.”’ 


In his own commentary on I Corinthians (1880), Heinrici 
writes as follows: 


“To onot, just as to Neyer (II Cor. vi. 2, Gal. iil. 16) nothing at all 
is to be supplied, but like inquzt it stands, sometimes as the introduc- 


SileOAY oom mORLE LURMESAYS 2 es GODPSAYS — 295 


tion to an objection (II Cor. x. 10, where Holsten refers to Bentley on 
Horat., Serm., 1, 4, 78), sometimes as a general formula of citation. 
It is especially often used in the latter sense by Philo, in the quotation 
of Scripture passages, and by Arrian-Epictetus, who supplies many 
most interesting parallels to the Pauline forms of speech. Schweig- 
hauser, in his Index, under ¢yci, remarks of it: nec enim semper in 
proferenda objectione locum habet illa formula, verum etiam in 
citando exemplo ad id quod agitur pertinente. J. G. Miiller (Philo 
the Jew’s Book on the Creation, Berlin, 1841, p. 44) says that ¢yci, 
after the example of Plato(?), became gradually among the Hellenistic 
Jews the standing formula of citation.”’ 


In his edition of Meyer’s ‘“‘ Commentary on I Corinthians ”’ 
(eighth edition, 1896), this note reappears in this form: 


“onov). Who? According to the usual view, God, whose words the 
sayings of the Scripture are, even when they, like Gen. 11. 24 through 
Adam, are spoken through another. Winer, 7 § 58, 9, 486: Buttmann, 
117. But the impersonal sense ‘es heisst,’ ‘inquit,’ les nearer the 
Pauline usage; he coincides in this with Arrian-Epictetus and Philo, 
with whom ¢yci sometimes introduces an objection, sometimes is the 
customary formula of citation. Cf. II Cor. x. 10, vi. 2, I Cor. xv. 27, 
Eph. iv. 8; Winer, as above; Miller, in Philo, De op. mund., 44; 
Heinrici, 1. 181. In accordance with this, are the other supplements of 
subject — 7 ypady or 76 mvedua (Riickert) — to be estimated.”’ 


Even in the extremity of his contention, therefore, Dr. Ab- 
bott, it seems, is not without support — on the philological 
side, at least — in previous commentators of the highest rank. 

He himself does not seem, however, quite clear in his own 
mind: and his confusion of both considerations and commen- 
tators which make for the fundamentally diverse positions 
that there is to be supplied with \éyer some such subject as 
n ypady, and that there is nothing at all to be supplied but 
the word is to be taken with entire indefiniteness, is indica- 
tory of the main thing that calls for remark in Dr. Abbott’s 
note. For, why should this confusion take place? It is quite 
evident that in interpreting the phrase the fundamental dis- 
tinction lies between the view which supposes that a subject 
to \éver is so implied as to be suggested either by the con- 


296 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


text or by the mind of the reader from the nature of the case, 
and that which takes Aéye as a case of true impersonal usage, 
of entirely indefinite subject. It is a minor difference among 
the advocates of the first of these views, which separates 
them into two parties — those which would supply as 
subject 6 Oeds, and those which would supply  ypad7. 
That one of these subdivisions of the first class of views 
should be violently torn from its true comradeship and con- 
fused with the second view, betrays a preoccupation on 
Dr. Abbott’s part, when dealing with this passage, with con- 
siderations not of purely exegetical origin. He is for the 
moment less concerned with ascertaining the meaning of the 
apostle than with refuting a special interpretation of his 
words: and therefore everything which stands opposed in any 
measure to the obnoxious interpretation appears to him to 
be ‘‘on his side.’? Put somewhat brusquely, this is as much 
as to say that Dr. Abbott is in this note dominated by dog- 
matic prejudice. 

There do not lack other indications of this fact. The most 
obtrusive of them is naturally the language — scarcely to be 
called perfectly calm — with which the second paragraph of 
the note opens: ‘‘ We are certainly not justified in forcing 
upon the apostle here and in chap. v. 14 a form of expression 
consistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration.”’ 
Certainly not. But because we chance not to like ‘‘the ex- 
treme view of verbal inspiration,” are we justified in for- 
bidding the apostle to use a form of expression consistent 
only with it, and forcing upon him some other form of ex- 
pression which we may consider consistent with a view of 
inspiration which we like better? Would it not be better to 
permit the apostle to choose his own form of expression and 
confine ourselves, as expositors, to ascertaining from his 
form of expression what view of inspiration lay in his mind, 
rather than seek to force his hand into consistency with our 
preconceived ideas? The whole structure of the note evinces, 
however, that it was not written in this purely expository 
spirit. Thus only can be explained a certain exaggerated 


“IT SAYS:” “SCRIPTURE SAYS: ” “GOD SAYS” 297 


dogmatism in its language, as if doubt were to be silenced by 
decision of manner if not by decisiveness of evidence. So also 
probably is to be explained a certain narrowness in the appeal 
to usage — that rock on which much factitious exegesis splits. 
Only, it is intimated, in case ‘‘it were St. Paul’s habit to 
introduce quotations from the Old Testament, by whomso- 
ever spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 Oeds 
Aeyer,”’ “could this supplement here be defended.’”’ One asks 
in astonishment whether St. Paul really could make known 
his estimate of Scripture as the very voice of God which 
might naturally be quoted with the formula ‘‘God says,”’ 
and so render the occurrence of that formula occasionally in 
his writings no matter of surprise, only by a habitual use of 
this exact formula in quoting Scripture. And one notes with- 
out surprise that the narrowness of Dr. Abbott’s rule for the 
adduction of usage supplies no bar to his practice when he is 
arguing ‘‘on the other side.’’ At the opening of the very next 
paragraph we read, ‘“‘It is objected that although gyai is used 
impersonally, \éyer is not’’: and to this the answer is returned, 
‘“The present passage and chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove 
the usage for St. Paul’’; with the supplement, ‘‘ And there 
are other passages in his epistles where this sense is at least 
applicable’’; and further, ‘‘ But in fact, the impersonal use 
of dnct in Greek authors is quite different.’’ One fancies Dr. 
Abbott must have had a grim controversial smile upon his 
features when he wrote that last clause, which pleads that 
the meaning assigned to \eyer here is absolutely unexampled 
in Greek literature, not only for \éyec but even for dyct, as a 
reason for accepting it for \éye here! But apart from this 
remarkable instance of skill in marshaling adverse facts — 
a skill not unexampled elsewhere in the course of this note, 
as any one who will take the trouble to examine the proof- 
texts adduced in it will quickly learn — might not the advo- 
cates of the supplement, 6 eds, say equally that ‘‘the present 
passage and chap. v. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for 
St. Paul, and there are other passages in his epistles where 
this sense is at least applicable.’’ And might they not support 


298 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


this statement with better proof-texts than those adduced 
by Dr. Abbott, or indeed with the same with better right; 
as well as with a more applicable supplementary remark than 
the one with which he really subverts his whole reasoning — 
such as this, for example, that elsewhere, in the New Testa- 
ment, as for instance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
usage contended for undoubtedly occurs, and a satisfactory 
basis is laid for it in the whole attitude of the entire body of 
New Testament writers, inclusive of Paul, toward the Old 
Testament? Certainly, reasoning so one-sided and domi- 
nated by preconceived opinions so blinding is thoroughly 
inconclusive. The note is, indeed, an eminent example of that 
form of argumentation which, to invert a phrase of Omar 
Khayyam’s, ‘“‘goes out at the same door at which it came 
in’: and even though its contention should prove sound, 
can itself add nothing to the grounds on which we embrace 
it. At best it may serve as the starting-point of a fresh in- 
vestigation into the proper interpretation of the phrase with 
which it deals. 

For such a fresh investigation we should need to give our 
attention particularly to two questions. The first would in- 
quire into the light thrown by Paul’s method of introducing 
quotations from the Old Testament, upon his estimate of the 
text of the Old Testament, — with a view to determining 
whether it need cause surprise to find him adducing it with 
such a formula as ‘‘God says.’’ Subsidiary to this it might 
be inquired whether it is accurate to say that ‘‘there is not 
a single instance in which o 6s is either expressed or implied 
as the subject, except where in the original context God is 
the speaker,’’ and further, if Paul’s usage elsewhere can be 
accurately so described, whether that fact will warrant us 
in denying such an instance to exist in Eph. iv. 8. The second 
question would inquire into the general usage of the subject- 
less \éyec or dyoi in and out of the New Testament, with a 
view to discovering what light may be thrown by it upon the 
interpretation of the passages in question. It might be in- 
cidentally asked in this connection whether it is a complete 


Sama ee OLE LURES SAYS we GODISAYS? 299 


account to give of g@yct in profane Greek to say that the 
‘impersonal use of @noi in Greek authors is quite different 
from that of the New Testament, inasmuch as with them 
gonot = gaol, ‘they say.’”’ 


It is really somewhat discouraging at this late date to 
find it treated as still an open question, how Paul esteemed 
the written words of the Old Testament. And it brings us, 
as the French say, something akin to stupefaction, when 
Dr. Abbott goes further and uses language concerning Paul’s 
attitude toward the Old Testament text which implies that 
Paul habitually distinguished, in point of authority, between 
those passages ‘‘where in the original context God is the 
speaker”? and the rest of the volume, so that ‘‘we have 
reason to believe”’ that the formula 6 eds Neyer ‘‘could not 
be used by Paul”’ in introducing Scriptural language not re- 
corded as spoken by God in the original context. He even 
suggests, indeed, that Paul shows an underlying doubt as to 
the Divine source of even the words attributed to God in 
the Old Testament text — ‘‘not hesitating to use a different 
subject’? when quoting them, ‘‘as in Rom. x. 19, 20, ‘Moses 
saith,’ ‘Isaiah is very bold and saith’; Rom. ix. 17, ‘The 
Scripture saith to Pharaoh’’”’ — and deals with the text of 
other portions with a freedom which exhibits his little respect 
for them — ‘‘not hesitating to make important alterations” 
in them. It would seem to require a dogmatic prejudice of 
the very first order to blind one to a fact so obvious as that 
with Paul ‘‘Scripture,” as such, is conceived everywhere as 
the authoritative declaration of the truth and will of God — 
of which fact, indeed, no better evidence can be needed than 
the very texts quoted by Dr. Abbott in a contrary sense. 

For, when Paul, in Rom. ix. 15, supports his abhorrent 
rejection of the supposition that there may be unrighteous- 
ness with God, with the divine declaration taken from Ex. 
Xxxlli. 19, introduced with the formula, ‘‘ For he”’ — that is, 
as Dr. Abbott recognizes, God — “‘saith to Moses,’’ and 
then immediately, in Rom. ix. 17, supports the teaching of 


300 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


this declaration with the further word of God taken from 
Ex. ix. 16, introduced with the formula, ‘‘ For the Scripture 
saith unto Pharaoh”? — the one thing which is thrown into 
a relief above all others is that, with Paul, ‘‘God saith” 
and ‘‘Seripture saith”? are synonymous terms, so synony- 
mous in his habitual thought that he could not only range 
the two together in consecutive clauses, but use the second 
in a manner in which, taken literally, it is meaningless and 
can convey an appropriate sense only when translated back 
into its equivalent of ‘‘God saith.’’ The present tense in 
both formulas, moreover, advises us that, despite the fact 
that in both instances they are words spoken by God which 
are cited, it is rather as part of that Scripture which to Paul’s 
thinking is the ever-present and ever-speaking word of God 
that they are adduced. It is not as words which God once 
spoke (eizev, LX X.) to Moses that the former passage is here 
adduced, but as living words still speaking to us — it is not 
as words Moses was once commanded to speak to Pharaoh 
that the second is here adduced, but as words recorded in 
the ever-living Scripture for our admonition upon whom the 
ends of the world have come. They are thus not assigned to 
Scripture in order to lower their authority: but rather as a 
mark of their abiding authority. And similarly when in that 
catena of quotations in Rom. x. 16-21, we read at ver. 19, 
‘‘first Moses saith,’’ and then at ver. 20, ‘‘and Isaiah is very 
bold and saith,” both adducing words of God — the implica- 
tion is not that Paul looks upon them as something less than 
the words of God and so cites them by the names of these 
human authors; but that it is all one to him to say, ‘‘God 
says,’ and ‘‘ Moses says,” or ‘‘Isaiah says’’: and therefore 
in this catena of quotations — in which are included four, 
not two, quotations — all the citations are treated as alike 
authoritative, though some are in the original context words 
of God and others (ver. 16) words of the prophet — and 
though some are adduced by the name of the prophet and 
some without assignment to any definitely named human 
source. The same implication, again, underlies the fact that 


nt i _— = — 


pil SAYS: 7 SCRIPTURE SAYS: * GOD SAYS” 301 


in the catena of quotations on Rom. xv. 9 seq., the first is 
introduced by xaOws yéypamrar, the next two by kal wadw 
Neyer and kal radu, and the last by cal radu ‘Hoatas Neyer — 
the first being from Ps. Ixxviii. 50, the second from Deut. 
xxx. 48, the third from Ps. exvii. 1, and only the last from 
Isaiah — Isa. xi. 10: clearly it is all one to the mind of Paul 
how Scripture is adduced — it is the fact that it is Scripture 
that is important. So also it is no more true that in Gall. iii. 
16, the Aévye: “‘ corresponds to éppnOnoav”’ of the immediately 
preceding context, than that it stands in line with the ‘‘and 
the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles 
by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand unto Abraham”’ 
of ii. 8 — a thing which the Scripture as such certainly did 
not do; and with the ‘‘for it is written” of iii. 10 and iii. 18, 
and the unheralded quotations of the Scriptures as unques- 
tioned authority of iii. 11 and iii. 12; and with the general 
appeal in ill. 22 to the teaching of Scripture as a whole as 
the sole testimony needed: the effect of the whole being to 
evince in the clearest manner that to Paul the whole text 
of Scripture, inclusive of Gen. xii. 3, Deut. xxvil. 26, Hab. 
ll. 4, Lev. xviii. 5, and Gen. xxii. 18, was as such the living 
word of the living God profitable to all ages alike for divine 
instruction. 

We need not go, indeed, beyond the first sentence of this 
Epistle to the Romans from which all but one of Dr. Abbott’s 
citations are drawn, to learn Paul’s conception of Scripture 
as the crystallized voice of God. There he declares himself to 
have been ‘‘separated unto the gospel of God which he prom- 
ised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom. 1. 
2). Dr. George T. Purves, in a singularly well-considered and 
impressive paper on ‘‘St. Paul and Inspiration,” printed in 
The Presbyterian and Reformed Review for January, 1893,” 
justly draws out the meaning of this compressed statement 
thus: 

“Not only did Moses and the prophets speak from God, but the 
sacred Scriptures themselves were in some way composed under divine 

21 Vol. iv, p. 13. 


302 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


control. He not only affirms with Peter that ‘moved by the Holy 
Ghost, men spake from God,’ but that ‘the Scriptures themselves are 
inspired by God.’ Paul plainly recognizes the human authorship of the 
books, and quotes Moses and David and Isaiah as speaking therein. 
But not only through them, but in these books of theirs did God also 
speak. Many readers notice the first part of Paul’s statement, but not 
the second. God spake ‘through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures.’”’ 


This emphasis on the written Scriptures as themselves the 
product of a divine activity, making them as such the divine 
voice to us, is characteristic of the whole treatment of Scrip- 
ture by Paul (I Cor. x. 11, Rom. xv. 4, iv. 23, I Cor. ix. 10, 
iv. 6): and it is thoroughly accordant with the point of view 
so exhibited, that he explicitly declares, not of the writers of 
Seripture, but of the sacred writings themselves, that they 
are theopneustic — breathed out, or breathed into by God 
(II Tim. iii. 16). For he applies this epithet not to ‘‘every 
prophet,” but to “every Scripture’? — that is, says Dr. 
Purves, to ‘‘the whole collection to which he had just re- 
ferred as the ‘sacred writings,’ and all their parts’’: these 
writings are theopneustic. ‘“‘ By their inspiration, he evidently 
meant,’’ continues Dr. Purves justly, ‘“‘that, as writings, they 
were so composed under God’s particular direction that both 
in substance and in form they were the special utterances of 
His mind and will.’’ 

It could be nothing more than an accident if Paul, under 
the dominance of such a conception of Scripture, has no- 
where happened to adduce from it a passage, taken out of a 
context in which God is not expressly made in the Old Testa- 
ment narrative itself the speaker, with the formula, 6 6eds 
Neyer, expressed or implied. If no instance of such an adduc- 
tion occurs, it is worth while to note that fact, to be sure, 
as one of the curious accidents of literary usage; but as there 
is no reason to doubt that such a formula would be entirely 
natural on the lips of Paul, so there is no propriety in calling 
it impossible in Paul, or even in erecting a distinction be- 
tween him and other New Testament writers on the ground 
that they do and he does not quote Scripture by such a 


BSA Stee SCRIPTURE SAYS 37. GOD SAYS 303 


formula. As a matter of fact, the distinction suggested be- 
tween passages in Scripture ‘‘ where in the original context 
God is the speaker”’ and passages where He is not the speaker 
— as if the one could be cited with a ‘‘God says,” and the 
other not, — is foreign to Paul’s conception and usage, as has 
abundantly appeared already: so that whatever passages of 
the former kind occur — ‘‘as in Rom. ix. 15,” says Dr. Ab- 
bott — are really passages in which Scripture is quoted with 
a “God says.” It cannot be held to be certain, moreover, that 
passages do not occur in which the ‘‘God says” introduces 
words not ascribed to God in the original context — so long, 
at least, as it is not obvious that ‘‘God”’ is not the subauditum 
in passages like Acts xiii. 35, Rom. xv. 10, Gal. iii. 16. It is 
no doubt, however, also worth observing that it is equally 
matter of fact, that it is rather to the Epistle to the Hebrews 
than to those that bear the name of Paul that we shall need 
to go to find a body of explicit instances of the usage in 
question. This is, as we have said, an interesting fact of 
literary usage, but it is not to be pressed into an indication 
of a divergent point of view toward ‘‘Scripture”’ between the 
Epistle to the Hebrews and the epistles that bear Paul’s 
name. 

Even Dr. Westcott seems, to be sure, so to press it. In 
the interesting dissertation “On the Use of the Old Testa- 
ment in the Epistle,’ which he has appended to his “ Com- 
mentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews,”’ he sets out in some 
detail the facts that bear on the mode in which that epistle 
cites the Old Testament: 


“The quotations,” he tells us, ‘are without exception made 
anonymously. There is no mention anywhere of the name of the 
writer (iv. 7 is no exception to the rule). God is presented as the 
speaker through the person of the prophet, except in the one place 
where He is directly addressed (ii. 6). . . . In two places the words are 
attributed to Christ. . . . In two other places the Holy Spirit specially 
is named as the speaker. .. . But it is worthy of notice that in each 
of these two cases the words are also quoted as the words of God 
(iv. 7, viii. 8). This assignment of the written word to God, as the 


304 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Inspirer of the message, is most remarkable when the words spoken 
by the prophet in his own person are treated as divine words — as 
words spoken by Moses: 1. 6 (Deut. xxxi. 43); iv. 4, comp. vv. 5, 7, 
8 (Gen. ii. 2); x. 830 (Deut. xxxii. 36); and by Isaiah: 11. 13 (Isa. viii. 
17 f), comp. also xiii. 5 (Deut. xxxi. 6). Generally it must be observed 
that no difference is made between the word spoken and the word 
written. For us and for all ages the record is the voice of God. The 
record is the voice of God, and as a necessary consequence the record 
is itself living. . . . The constant use of the present tense in quotations 
emphasizes this truth: ii. 11, 1. 7, xu. 5. Comp. xu. 26.” # 

Every careful student will recognize this at once as a very 
clear and very true statement of the attitude of the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews toward the Old Testament. 
But we cannot help thinking that Dr. Westcott overshoots 
the mark when he throws it into strong contrast with the 
attitude of the rest of the New Testament writers to the Old 
Testament. When he says, for example: ‘‘ There is nothing 
really parallel to this general mode of quotation in the other 
books of the New Testament’’ — meaning apparently to 
suggest, as the subsequent context indicates, that the author 
of this Epistle exhibits an identification in his mind of the 
written text of the Scriptures with the voice of God which is 
foreign to the other writers of the New Testament — he 
would seem to have attached far too great significance to 
what is, after all, so far as it is real, nothing more than one of 
those surface differences of individual usage which are always 
observable among writers who share the same fundamental 
view-point, or even in different treatises from the same hand. 
Entirely at one in looking upon the Scriptures as nothing less 
than ta Aoyra Tov Oeot (Rom. iii. 2, Heb. v. 12 8) —in all 
their parts and phrases the utterance of God — the epistles 
that bear the name of Paul and this epistle yet chance to 
differ in the prevalent mode in which these ‘‘oracles”’ are 
adduced: the one in its formulas of citation emphasizing the 
sole fact that they are “oracles” it is quoting, the others, 

22 Op. cit., pp. 285, 286, 287. 


3 Westcott, in loc., “‘it seems more natural to refer it to the collected writ- 
ings of the Old Testament.” 


“TE SAYS: {SCRIPTURE SAYS: 71" GOD SAYS ” 305 


that these ‘‘oracles”’ lie before them in wrttien form. Let the 
fact of this difference, of course, be noted: but let it not be 
overstrained and, as if it were the sole relevant fact in the 
field of view, made to bear the whole weight of a theory of 
the relations of the two in their attitude toward Scripture. 
Impossible as such a procedure should be in any ease, it 
becomes doubly so when we note the extremely narrow and 
insecure basis for the conclusion drawn, which is offered by 
the differences in usage adduced between Hebrews and the 
rest of the New Testament — which means for us primarily 
the epistles that bear the name of Paul. Says Dr. Westcott 
in immediate sequence to what we have quoted from him: 


“There is nothing really parallel to this general mode of quotation 
in the other books of the New Testament. Where the word \éyer occurs 
elsewhere, it is for the most part combined either with the name of the 
prophet or with ‘Scripture’: e.g., Rom. x. 16, ‘Hoatas Neyer; x. 19, 
Mwvofjs Neyer; Xl. 9, Aaveld Neyer; IV. 3, ) ypady Ever; 1x. 17, Neyer 77 
ypapn, etc. Where God is the subject, as is rarely the case, the refer- 
ence is to words directly spoken by God: II Cor. vi. 2, Neyer yap (6 
Geds); Rom. ix. 15, 7G Mwvoe? Neyer; 1X. 25, & 7H *Qone Eyer. Comp. 
Rom. xv. 9-12 (yéeypamrar... Neyer... . ‘ Hoatas Neyer). The two pass- 
ages in the Epistle to the Ephesians (iv. 8, v. 14, 6.6 Neyer) appear to 
be different in kind.”’ 


The last remark is apparently intended to exclude Eph. iv. 
8 and v. 14 from consideration.** The immediately preceding 
one seems intended to suggest that the subject to be supplied 
to eye in Rom. xv. 10, which carries with it also Rom. xv. 
11, is 7 ypadn; if we rather supply with Sanday-Headlam 
Ges, this citation would afford an instance to the contrary. 
Other cases similar to this, e. g., Acts xiil. 35 * and (with the 


24 What is meant may possibly be that these two passages in Ephesians are 
analogous neither to the usage of Hebrews nor to that of the rest of the New 
Testament, but stand out by themselves. In that case Dr. Westcott probably 
means to take them as instances of the indefinite use of \eye. Cf. above, p. 293. 

2 Cf. Meyer’s note: ‘‘réyer], the subject is necessarily that of eipnxer, ver. 34, 
and so, neither David (Bengel, Heinrichs and others), nor the Scriptures (Herr- 
mann), but God, although Ps. xvi. 10 contains David’s words addressed to God. 
But David is considered as the interpreter of God, who has put the prayer into 
his mouth. Comp. on Matt. xix. 5.” 


306 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


parallel yal) I Cor. vi. 16, are simply passed by in silence. 
If such cases were considered, perhaps the induction would 
be different. 

It is possible, on the other hand, that the usage of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews also is conceived by Dr. Westcott a 
shade too narrowly. It scarcely seems sufficient to say of 
ii. 6, for example, that this passage is not an exception to the 
more general usage of the Epistle inasmuch as it is ‘“‘the one 
place where God is directly addressed’? — and is therefore 
not ascribed to Him, but to ‘‘some one somewhere.”’ Accord- 
ing to Dr. Westcott’s own exposition,” we have in 1. 10 also 
words addressed to God and yet cited as spoken by God, and 
in a number of passages words spoken of God nevertheless 
cited as spoken by Him; and, in a word, the fundamental 
principle of the mode of quotation used by this Epistle is 
that the words of Scripture as such are the living words of 
God and are cited as such indifferently — whether in the 
original context spoken by Him or by another of Him, to 
Him, or apart from Him. In any event, therefore, the cita- 
tion in the present passage by the formula ‘‘someone hath 
somewhere borne witness”’ is an exception to the general 
usage of the Epistle, and evidences that the author of it, 
though conceiving Scripture as such as a body of divine 
oracles, did not really lose sight of the fact that these oracles 
were delivered through men, and might therefore be cited 
on occasion as the deliverances of these men. In other words, 
here is a mode of citation of the order affirmed to be charac- 


26 Cf. Meyer’s note: “‘¢@nciv], who it is that says it, is self-evident, namely, 
God, the utterances of Scripture being His words, even when they may be spoken 
through another, as Gen. ii. 24 was through Adam. Comp. on Matt. xix. 5. Sim- 
ilarly Gal. ii. 16, Eph. iv. 8, Heb. viii. 5, I Cor. xv. 27. ‘H ypadn, which is usu- 
ally supplied here, would need to be suggested by the context, as in Rom. xv. 10. 
Riickert arbitrarily prefers 76 rvedua.” “To take it impersonally, ‘it is said’ as 
in II Cor. x. 10, according to the well-known usage in the classics, would be 
without warrant from any other instance of Paul’s quotations from Scripture. 
Comp. Winer, Gr., p. 486 [English translation, 656]; Buttmann, Neut. Gr., p. 117 
[English translation, 134].” 

27 For he supposes the words quoted in i. 10 to be addressed not to Christ, 
but to God: “God through His Spirit so speaks in the Psalmist that words not 
directly addressed to Christ find their fulfillment in Him.” 


CO es a4 —_ 


BLISS 2 NORE TUR ESSAYS meio DroAY Sa 307 


teristic of the letters bearing the name of Paul. It is at least 
not beyond the limits of possibility that another such in- 
stance occurs in iv. 7: ‘‘saying in David.’”’ No doubt, ‘‘in 
David,’ may be taken here, as Dr. Westcott takes it, as 
meaning ‘“‘in the person of David,” i. e., through his pro- 
phetic utterances; but it seems, on the whole, much more 
natural to take it as parallel to év 77 BiBAw Mwvaéws (Mark xii. 
26), €v TQ ‘Qoné (Rom. ix. 25), and as meaning ‘‘in the book 
of David ” 8 — exhibiting the consciousness of the author 
that he is quoting not merely ‘‘God,” but God in the written 
Scripture — written by the hand of men. This is the more 
worth insisting on that it is really not absolutely certain that 
the subject of the \éywy here is immediately ‘‘God”’ at all. 
There is no subject expressed either for it or the opife on 
which it depends; and when we go back in the context for 
an express subject it eludes us, and we shall not find it until 
we arrive at the ‘‘even as the Holy Ghost saith” of iu. 7. 
From that point on, we have a series of quotations, intro- 
duced, quite in the manner of Philo, with formule which 
puzzle us as to their reference — whether to God, who is the 
general subject of the whole context, or to Scripture, con- 
ceived as the voice of God (e. g., ili. 15, & 7T@ NEyeoOar — 
by whom? God? or ‘‘the Scripture” already quoted? iv. 4, 
elonkey — who? God? or Scripture? iv. 5, kal & TovTw wadwy). 
Something of the same kind meets us in the eighth chapter, 
where quite in the manner of Philo, we begin at ver. 5: 
‘‘Hven as Moses was oracularly warned when about to make 
the tabernacle, for ‘see,’ dyciv, etc.’’ and proceed at ver. 8, 
with a subjectless \éye, to close with ver. 13 with an equally 
subjectless év 7@ eye. It certainly is not obvious that the 
subject to be supplied to these three verbs is ‘‘God”’ rather 
than ‘‘oracular Scripture.”’ 

One can but feel that with a due regard to these two 
classes of neglected facts, a somewhat broader comparison of 
the usage of the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of those 


28 So (according to Liinemann), Dindorf, Schulz, B6hme, Bleek, Ebrard 
Alford, Woerner: add Lowrie, Riggenbach. 


308 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


letters that bear the name of Paul would not leave an im- 
pression of such sharp and indubitable divergence in point 
of view as Dr. Westcott’s statement is apt to suggest. In the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, the verb Aéyw is used to introduce 
citations, (1) with expressed subject: 1. 6, ‘‘ But someone some- 
where hath borne witness, saying... .’’; 111. 7, ‘‘ Even as the 
Holy Ghost saith... .’’; vi. 14, ‘‘God....sware by him- 
self, saying... .’’: (2) with subject to be supplied from the 
preceding context: 1. 6, ‘‘And when he (God) again bringeth 
in the firstborn into the world, he saith... .”5;1. 7, ‘“And of 
the angels he (God) saith... .’’; 11. 12, ‘‘ He (Christ) is not 
ashamed to call them brethren, saying... .’’; v. 6, ‘‘As he 
(God) saith also in another place... .’’: (3) with subject to 
be supplied from the general knowledge of the reader: x. 5, 
‘“Wherefore when he (Christ) cometh into the world, he 
saith 2.2.27 x: 8) 4) Sayings (Chist).abovers: sass) eee 
‘‘But now hath he (God) promised, saying... .’’: (4) without 
obvious subject: ii. 15, ‘‘ While it is said, To day, ete.” (by 
whom? God? or the Scripture quoted, iil. 7 seqg.?); iv. 7, “‘He 
[ or it? ] again defineth a certain time, saying in David....”; 
vii. 8, ‘For finding fault with them, he [or it?] saith... .” 
(ef. viii. 13, ‘‘in that he [or it?] saith ....’’). On the other 
hand, in the epistles that bear the name of Paul we may 
distinguish some four cases of the adduction of Scripture by 
the formula déyer. (1) Sometimes, quoting Scripture as a 
divine whole, the formula runs 7 ypad7 Aeyer or A€yet 7 Ypad7: 
Rom. iv. 8, 1x. 17 (Aéyer 7 ypadn 7G Papaw®), xi. 2 (7 ypady év 
‘Hyeia), Gal. iv. 30, I Tim. v. 18. (2) Sometimes it is adduced 
by the name of the author: Aaveié Néyet, Rom. iv. 6, xi. 9; 
“Hoaias \éyer, Rom. x. 16, 20, xv. 12. (8) Sometimes it is 
quoted by its contents: 6 vowos N€yer, Rom. ili. 19, vii. 7, I Cor. 
ix. 8, 10, xiv. 34; the righteousness that is of faith \éyet, Rom. 
x. 6 (ef. ver. 10); 6 xpnuariouds Neyer, Rom. xi. 4. (4) Some- 
times it is adduced by the verb Aéyer without expressed subject. 
(A) In some of these cases the subject is plainly indicated in 
the preceding context: Rom. ix. 25 = ‘‘God,” from ver. 22; 
x. 10 = ‘‘the righteousness of faith,” (?) from ver. 6; x. 21 = 


ber set DORR LURE SAYS: i GOD SAYS 309 


‘“‘Tsaiah,’”’ from ver. 20. (B) In others it is less clearly indi- 
cated and is not altogether obvious: [ Acts xili. 34 = ‘‘God,”’ 
from eipnxev? |; Rom. ix. 15 = ‘‘God,” from ver. 14?; Rom. 
xv. 10 = “Scripture,” from yéypamrac?; II Cor. vi. 2 = 
God; 7mirom | preceding» context; Gal ai. 16 =)" God,7 
from the promises?; Ejph. iv. 8 and v. 12. It should be added 
that parallel to the use of the subjectless @nct in Heb. viii. 5 
we have the similar use of it in I Cor. vi. 16. 

When we glance over these two lists of phenomena we 
shall certainly recognize a difference between them: but the 
difference is not suggestive of such an extreme distinction as 
Dr. Westcott appears to indicate. The fact is that for its 
proper estimation we must rise to a higher viewpoint and 
look upon the two lists in the light of a much larger fact. 
For we cannot safely study this difference of usage as an 
isolated phenomenon: and we shall get the key to its inter- 
pretation into our hands only when. we correlate it with a 
more general view of the estimate of Scripture and mode of 
adducing Scripture prevalent at the time and in the circles 
which are represented by these epistles. Dr. Westcott already 
points the way to this wider outlook, when at the end of his 
discussion he adds these words: 


“The method of citation on which we have dwelt is peculiar to 
the Epistle [to the Hebrews] among the writings of the New Testa- 
ment; but it is interesting to notice that there is in the Epistle of 
Clement a partial correspondence with it. Clement generally quotes 
the LXX. anonymously. He attributes the prophetic words to God 
(15, 21, 46), to Christ (16, 22), to the Holy Word (13, 56), to the Holy 
Spirit (13, 16). But he also, though rarely, refers to the writers (26, 
Job; 52, David), and to Books (57, Proverbs, ‘the all virtuous Wis- 
dom’), and not unfrequently uses the familiar form yéyparra: (14, 39, 
etc.). The quotations in the Epistle of Barnabas are also commonly 
anonymous, but Barnabas mentions several names of the sacred 
writers, and gives passages from the Law, the Prophets and the 
Psalms with the formula, ‘the Prophet saith’ (vi. 8; 2; 4, 6).”’ 


And, he should have added, Barnabas also repeatedly ad- 
duces what he held to be the Word of God with the formulas 


310 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


yéypamrau (iv. 3, 14, v. 2, xi. 1, xiv. 6, xv. 1, xvi. 6) and Aéyer 
h ypady (iv. 7, 11, v. 4, vi. 12, xiil. 2, xv. 5): and indeed passes 
from the one mode of citation to the other without the least 
jar, as, for example, in chap. v.: ‘‘ For zt 1s written concerning 
him, some things indeed with respect to Israel, and some with 
respect to us. For 2 saith this (Isa. lil. 5, 7)..... And the 
Scripture saith (Prov. 1. 17).... And still also this (Jer. 1. 
25) Serie For God saith (Zech. xii. 6)... .. For the prophesier 
SAL Esaki e2ls ebCy) een And again it savth (Isa. |. 6).”’ 
Though adverting thus to these facts, however, Dr. Westcott 
quite misses their significance. What they mean is shortly 
this: that the two modes of citing Scripture thought to dis- 
tinguish Hebrews and the letters that bear the name of Paul, 
do not imply well-marked distinctive modes of conceiving 
Scripture; but coéxist readily within the limits of one brief 
letter, like the letter of Clement or that of Barnabas. No 
wonder, when laid side by side, we found the usages of the 
two to present no sharply marked division line, but to 
crumble into one another along the edges. And when we look 
beyond Clement and Barnabas and take a general glance 
over the literature of the time, it is easily seen that we are 
looking in the two cases only at two fragments of one fact, 
and are seeing in each only one of the everywhere current 
methods of citing Scripture as the very Word of God. It 
seems inconceivable that one could rise from reading, say, 
twenty pages of Philo, for example, without being fully con- 
vinced of this. 

Philo’s fundamental conception of Scripture is that it is 
a book of oracles; each passage of it is a xpyouds or \Oyuor, 
and the whole is therefore ot xpnopoi or Ta \Oyta: he currently 
quotes it, accordingly, as ‘‘the living voice” of God, and 
whole treatises of his may be read without meeting with a 
single citation introduced by yéypamrac or with the Scriptures 
once called 7 ypadn. Nevertheless, when occasion serves, he 
adduces Scripture readily enough as % ypadn, and cites it 
with yéypamrac, and calls it Ta ypauuara. We have no more 
reason for assuming that such modes of citing Scripture 


RSA o 7 eC hRiPTURE,SAYS374> GOD SAYS 7 311 


would have been foreign to the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews (whose mode of citing Scripture is markedly Phi- 
lonic) than we have for assuming that the author of the tract 
de Mutatione Nominum, in which they do not occur, but 
where Scripture is almost exclusively of xpyouot, or the 
author of the tracts de Somniis, where again they do not 
occur, but where Scripture is almost exclusively 6 iepdos (or 
@ Getos) NOyos (i. 14, 22, 33, 35, 37, 39, 42, ii. 4, 9, 37, etc.; 
1. 33, 1. 37) — which designations are rare again in de 
Mutatione Nominum (6 6. X., 20; 6t. X., 838) — held a different 
conception of Scripture from the author of the tract de 
Legatione ad Caium (§ 29) or the tract de Abrahamo (§ 1), in 
which the Scriptures are spoken of as Ta ypadupara or ai 
ypagdat. There is no reason, in a word, why, if the Epistle to 
the Hebrews had contained even a single other verse, it 
might not have presented the ‘‘exotic,’”’ 7 ypag@7 or yéypar- 
tat. Because Philo or the author of this Epistle was especially 
accustomed to look on Scripture as a body of oracles and to 
cite it accordingly, is no reason why he should forget that 
it is a body of written oracles and be incapable on occasion 
of citing it from that point of view. Similarly because Paul 
ordinarily cites Scripture as written is no reason why he 
should not be firmly convinced that what is written in it is 
oracles, or should not occasionally cite it from that point of 
view. In a word, the two modes of citing Scripture brought 
into contrast by Bishop Westcott are not two mutually ex- 
clusive ways of citing Scripture, but two mutually comple- 
mentary methods. The use of the one by any writer does 
not argue that the other is foreign to him; if we have enough 
written material from his hand, we are sure rather to find 
in him traces of the other usage also. This is the meaning of 
the presence in the Epistle to the Hebrews of suggestive in- 
stances of an approach to the citation of Scripture as a 
document: and of the presence in the epistles bearing the 
name of Paul of instances of modes of citation which hint 
of his conception of Scripture as an oracular book. Where 
and when the sense of the oracular character of the source 


312 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


of the quotation is predominatingly in mind it tends to be 
quoted with the simple @yai or Aéyer, with the implication 
that it is God that says it: this is most richly exhibited in 
Philo, and, within the limits of the New Testament, most 
prevailingly in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Where and when, 
on the other hand, the consciousness that it is from a written 
source that the authoritative words are drawn is predomi- 
nant in the mind, it tends to be quoted with the simple 
yéypamrrat or the more formal 7 ypad7 eye: this is the mode 
in which it is most commonly cited in the epistles that bear 
the name of Paul. Both modes of citation rest on the common 
consciousness of the Divine authority of the matter cited, 
and have no tendency to exclude one another: they appear 
side by side in the same writer, and must be held to pre- 
dominate variously in different writers only according to 
their prevailing habits of speaking of Scripture, and at differ- 
ent times in the same writer according as the circumstances 
under which he was writing threw the emphasis in his mind 
temporarily upon the Scriptures as written oracles or as 
written oracles. 

From this point of view we may estimate Dr. Westcott’s 
remark: ‘‘Nor can it be maintained that the difference of 
usage is to be explained by the difference of readers, as being 
[in Hebrews] Jews, for in the Gospels yéyparrat is the com- 
mon formula (nine times in St. Matthew).’’ This remark, 
like his whole treatment of the subject, seems conceived in 
a spirit which is too hard and narrow, too drily statistical. 
No one, doubtless, would contend that the difference of 
readers directly produced the difference of usage, as if the 
Scriptures must be quoted to Jews as ‘‘oracles of God,” and 
to Gentiles as ‘‘ written documents.’’ But it is far from obvi- 
ous that the difference of readers may not, after all, have 
had very much to do with the prevalence of the one mode 
of citation in the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the other in 
the epistles that bear the name of Paul. The Jews were 
certainly accustomed to the current citation of the Scrip- 
tures as the living voice of God in oracular deliverances — 


Se eee eee 


ee 


WUDRSooe drool UORT SAYS: GOD SAYow BS 


as the usage of Philo sufficiently indicates: and it may be 
that this was subtly felt the most impressive method of 
adducing the words of the Holy Book when addressing Jews. 
On the other hand, the heathen were accustomed to au- 
thoritative documents, cited currently, with an implication 
of their authority, by the formula yéypamrar: % and it may 
well be that this subtly suggested itself as the most telling 
way of adducing Scripture as authoritative law to the 
Gentiles. We need not ride such a notion too hard: but it 
at least seems far from inconceivable that the selfsame 
writer, addressing, on the one hand, a body of devout Jews, 
and, on the other, a body of law-loving Romans, might find 
himself using almost unconsciously modes of adducing Scrip- 
ture suggestive, in the one case, of loving awe in its presence 
and, in the other, of its binding authority over the conscience. 
Be this as it may, however, it is quite clear that the fact that 
Paul ordinarily adduces Scripture with ‘‘the forms (kaéas) 
yéypamra (sixteen times in the Epistle to the Romans), 7 
ypapdy) Neyer, and the like, which never occur in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews,’’ implies no far-reaching difference of con- 
ception on his part from that exhibited by that Epistle, as 
to the fundamental character of the Scriptures as an oracular 
book — which, on the contrary, is just what he calls them 
(Rom. i. 2) — and certainly raises no presumption against 
his occasionally quoting them as an oracular book with the 
formula so characteristic of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6 
feos N€vyer, or its equivalents. And the fact that ‘‘Paul not 
unfrequently quotes the words of God as ‘Scripture’ simply 
(e. g., Rom. ix. 17)” so far from raising a presumption that 
he would not quote ‘‘Scripture”’ as ‘‘ words of God,” actually 
demonstrates the contrary, as it only in another way indi- 
cates the identification on his part of the written word with 
the voice of the speaking God. 

If we approach the study of such texts as Eph. iv. 8, v. 


29 Cf. Deissmann, “ Bibelstudien,” 109; “‘ Neue Bibelstudien,” 77: and also 
for the implications, Kuyper, ‘Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology,” pp. 483-435 
and 444-445. 


314 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


14, therefore, from the point of view of the Pauline concep- 
tion of Scripture, there is no reason why they should not be 
understood as adducing Scripture with a high ‘‘God says.” 
To say that ‘‘ we have reason to believe” that such a formula 
‘could not be used by Paul,’’ is as wide of the mark as could 
well be. To say that it is a formula more in accordance with 
the point of view of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is to con- 
found mere occasional differences in usage with fundamental 
differences in conception. To Paul, too, the Scriptures are a 
book of oracles, and though he cites them ordinarily as 
written oracles there is no reason why he should not occa- 
sionally cite them merely as oracles. And in any case, whether 
we take the subauditum in such passages as ‘‘God,” or 
‘‘Seripture,’’ or prefer to render simply by ‘‘it,’’ from Paul’s 
point of view the meaning is all one: in any case, Scripture 
is to him the authoritative dictum of God and what it says 
is adduced as the authoritative word that ends all strife. 


In seeking to estimate the likelihoods as to the meaning 
of such a locution as the 6 \éyer of Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, we 
should not lose from sight, on the other hand, the fact that 
the Greek language was not partial to true ‘‘impersonals,”’ 
that is, absolutely indefinite uses of its verbs. Says Jelf: 


‘“‘Of impersonal verbs (in English, verbs with the indefinite zt) the 
Greek language has but few.”’ *° 


Says Kihner: 


“Impersonal verbs, by which we understand a verb agreeing with 
the indefinite pronoun zt, are not known to the Greek language: for 
expressions like det, xp7 .. . A€yerar, etc... . the Greek always con- 
ceived as personal, in that the infinitive or subjoined sentence was 
considered the subject of these verbs.”’ *! 


No doubt, the subject often suffers ellipsis — especially when 
it may be counted upon readily to suggest itself, either out 


80 § 373, 1. obs., 1. 
31 “ Ausfiihr. Gram.,”’ ii. 30 (§ 352). 





PLUG SAYS eo ORTPTURE SAYS 77h GODsSAYS 7 315 


of the predicate itself, or out of the context, or out of the 
knowledge of the reader: and no doubt this implied subject 
is sometimes the indefinite 71s. But it remains true that as 
yet there has turned up no single instance in all Greek liter- 
ature of \éyer in the purely indefinite sense of ‘‘someone 
says,’’ equivalent to ‘‘it is said”’ in the meaning of general 
rumor, or of a common proverb, or a current saying; and 
though there have been pointed out instances of something 
like this in the case of the kindred word ¢yot, it still remains 
somewhat doubtful precisely how they are to be interpreted. 
The forms commonly used to express this idea are either the 
expressed tis, or the third person plural, as déyouvct, dact, 
ovowafovow, or the third person singular passive, as Aéyerat, 
or the second person singular optative or indicative of the 
historical tenses, as dains av, = dicas, or the like.” 

We find it, indeed, occasionally asserted that onct is used 
sometimes or frequently as a pure impersonal, in the sense 
of ‘it is said.”’ The passage from Bernhardy, to be sure, to 
which reference has been made in support of this assertion, 
by more than one of the commentators adduced above, has 
its primary interest not in this point, but in the different one 
of the use of the singular ¢@nai for the plural — like the Latin 
nquit, and the English ‘‘says”’ in that vulgar colloquial lo- 
cution in which it is made to do duty not only in the form 
‘‘he says,” but also in such forms as ‘‘I says” and ‘‘you 
says,’ and even ‘‘they says” and ‘‘we says.’’ What Bern- 
hardy remarks is: * 


“The rhetorical employment of the singular for the plural rests on 
the Greek peculiarity (K. 3, 5; 6, 13c.) of clearly conceiving and repre- 
senting the multitude by means of the individual. A ready instance of 
this is supplied by the formula ¢nzi, like the Latin znquzt an expression 
for all persons and numbers for designating an indefinite speaker (den 
beliebigen Redner) — ‘heisst es’; and by the more classic eiwé wou in 
appeal to the multitude in Attic life, Arist. (as Pac., 385, eimé you ri 


3 Jelf, § 373, 7: Kihner, l.c.: Jannaris (‘A Historical Greek Grammar,’ 1161 
seq.), treats the omitted subject no otherwise than Kihner. 
33 “Syntax.,” 419. 


316 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


maoxer’ Gvdpes; coll. Hccl., 741), Plat. (clearly in a turn like eiré yor, 
& De&kparés re Kai duets of AAAor), Demosth., Phil. 1, p. 45; Chers., p. 108; 
LaMOCr ADial Lowes 


The usage of noi here more particularly adverted to — for 
all numbers and persons — seems a not uncommon one. In- 
stances may possibly be found in the “‘ Discourses”’ of Epic- 
tetus i. 29, 34 (Schenkl, p.95). ‘‘ Even athletes are dissatisfied 
with slight young men: ‘ He cannot lift me,’ dyat,’’ where onat 
might perhaps be rendered by our vernacular, ‘‘says they,”’ 
referring to ‘‘the athletes.’’ Again, iv. 9, 15 (Schenkl, p. 383): 
“But learn from what the trainers of boys do. The boy has 
fallen: ‘Rise,’ dai, ‘wrestle again, till you become strong!’”’ 
where we may possibly have another ‘says they,’ viz., the 
trainers. Possibly again i. 10, 20 (Schenkl, p. 133), ‘‘But 
consider, if you refer everything to a small coin, not even 
he who loses his nose is in your opinion damaged. ‘ Yes,’ 
oynot, ‘for he is mutilated in his body,’’’ where possibly gyi 
is ‘‘says you,” referring to the collocutor, addressed in the 
preceding context in the second person — though, no doubt, 
another explanation is here possible. Indeed, in no one of 
the instances cited is it impossible to conceive a singular sub- 
ject derived from the contextual plural as specially in mind. 
If dyot were genuine in Wisdom xv. 12,*° II Cor. x. 10,** these 
might well supply other instances — the ‘‘says they ”’ in each 
case continuing the contextual or implicated plural. But in 
none of these instances, it is to be observed, would the sub- 
ject be conceived as in the strict sense ‘‘indefinite.’”’ It is a 

34 These references are added in a note: ‘Von ¢yci in spiten manche nach 
Bentley, wie Dav. ad Cic. Tus. i. 39; Wytt. ad Plut., T. vi, p. 791. Von eizé pou, 
Heind. ad Euthyd., 29.” 

% Cf. Grimm’s note, given above, p. 289. 

86 Meyer, zn loc., continues to read ¢yai. He says, ‘‘It is said, impersonal, as 
often with the Greeks. See Bernhardy, p. 419. The reading ¢aciv (Lachmann, 
following B. Vulg.), is a rash correction. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Thesmoph., 
p. 189; Buttmann, Newt. Gram., p. 119 [English translation, 136]. So in 
essence most commentators, including Flatt, Storr, Krause, De Wette, Kling, 
Waite. Riickert more warily comments: “‘¢yciv is here properly recognized as a 


formula of adduction, without reference to the number of those speaking. See 
Winer (804).”’ Cf. above, p. 289. 





ULSAN ar DOR LPT URE SAY Ss aaa COD ISAS 2 317 


perfectly definite subject that is present to the mind of the 
writer, given either in the immediate context or in the 
thorough understanding that exists between the writer and 
reader. There is in them nothing whatever of the vagueness 
that attaches to the French ‘‘on dit,’’ or the German ‘‘man 
sagt,” or the English ‘‘it is said.’’? The Greeks had other lo- 
cutions for expressing this idea, and if it was ever expressed 
by the simple ¢yat, only the slightest traces of it remain in 
their extant literature. 

In the seventh edition of the Greek Lexicon of Liddell & 
Scott,>” nevertheless, this usage is expressly assigned to @yat. 
We read: 


“act parenthetically, they say, zt is said, Il. 5, 638, Od. 6, 42 
and Att.; but in prose also ¢yzi, like French on dit, Dem. 650, 18, 
Plut. 2, 112 C., etc. (so Lat. inquit, act; Gronov, Liv. 34, 3, Bent. 
Hor. 1 Sat. 4, 79; — especially in urging an objection or counter- 
argument, v. Interpp. Pers. Sat. 1, 40);—so also é¢n, c. ace. et inf., 
Xen. An. i, 6, 6.” 


It is far from obvious, however, that the passages here ad- 
duced will justify precisely the usage which they are cited 
to illustrate. In the passage from Demosthenes — éoTw, dnoiv, 
vrep a’tod 7 a’T? TLiuwpia, etc. — it seems to be quite clear, 
as the previous sentence suggests and the editors recognize,® 
that the subject of the dyct is éxaoros Tay yeypadorwr, and is 
far from a purely indefinite 7us. The passage from Plutarch 
(‘“Consolatio ad Apollonium,” xxi) is more specious. It runs: 
GN’ ob yap HATiCov, nol, TavTa TelcecBaL, ovdE TpoTEdOKWN; 
and is translated in the Latin version, ‘‘ At, inquiunt, preeter 
spem mihi hic casus et expectationem evenit’’; and in Hol- 
land’s old English version, ‘‘ But haply you will say, I never 
thought that this would have befallen unto me, neither did 
I so much as doubt any such thing.’’ A glance at the context, 
however, is enough to show that there is no purely indefinite 
gyoi here, though it may be that we have here another in- 
stance of its usage without regard to number and person. In 


37 P, 1665a (Oxford, 1883). 38 Whiston, Reiske, Weber. 


318 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


any case, the subject is the quite definitely conceived inter- 
locutor of the passage. That the éfn adduced at the end of 
the note as in some degree of the same sort is not an indefinite 
épn, but has the Clearchus of the immediately preceding con- 
text as its subject, is too obvious for remark. Clearchus was 
present by the request of Cyrus at the trial of Orontes, and 
when he came out he reported to his friends the manner in 
which the trial was conducted: ‘‘He said (é6n) that Cyrus 
began to speak as follows.” It is not by such instances as 
these that the occurrence of a purely indefinite @yoi can be 
established.*? 

The subjectless ¢nai, to be sure, does occur very thickly 
scattered over the face of Greek literature, introducing or 
emphasizing quotations, or adducing objections, or the like: 
but the ‘‘it’”’ that is to be supplied to it is, ordinarily at least, 
a quite definite one with its own definite reference perfectly 
clear. A characteristic instance, often referred to, is that in 
Demosth., ‘“ Leptin,” § 56: xal yap To. uovy T&v TavTwY adbTa 
Tour’ &y TH oTHAN YeypamTat, éredn Kovwv, dynoiv, nrevOépwae 
tovs ’“A@nvaiwy cuupaxovs. — "Eat 6€ tovTo TO ypauma..... ‘ 
Here F. A. Wolf comments: ‘‘ Absolute ibi interjectum est 
gonolv, aut, si Mavis, subaudi 6 ypaWas’’; and Schaefer adds: 
‘““Subaudi 7 orn.” * It does not appear why we should not 
render simply “it says’’: but this ‘‘it’’ is so far from an 
‘‘‘indefinite’ it” that it has its clear reference to the inscrip- 
tion just mentioned. Perhaps even more instructive is a pas- 
sage in the third Philippic * of Demosthenes, which runs as 
follows: 


“That such is our present state, you yourselves are witnesses, and 
need not any testimony from me. That our state in former times was 
quite opposite to this, I shall now convince you, not by any argu- 
ments of mine, but by a decree of your ancestors (ypaupara rdv 


89 We are indebted to Prof. S. S. Orris, of Princeton University, for sugges- 
tions in preparing this paragraph. He permits us to add that, in his opinion, 
“onoi is never equivalent to the general, indefinite they say or it is said.” 

40 Reiske, p. 477; Dindorf, ii. 23. 41 Reiske and Schaefer, vi. 162. 

42 iii. §§ 41, 42 (p. 122); ““Oratores Attici,” v. 214. 





ML ITESAYS eae SORIPTURE SAYS: 740 GOD SAYS)” 319 


mpoyovwv), Which they inscribed upon a brazen column (or#Anv) erected 
in the citadel. ... What, then, says the decree (ri obv Neyer TA Yodu- 
para)? ‘Let Arithmius,’ it says (¢nciv), ‘of Zelia, the son of Pythonax, 
be accounted infamous and an enemy to the Athenians and their 
allies, both he and all his race.’ . . . The sentence imported somewhat 
more, for, in the laws importing capital cases, it is enacted (yéypamraz) 
that ‘when the legal punishment of a man’s crime cannot be inflicted 
he may be put to death,’ and it was accounted meritorious to kill him. 
‘Let not the infamous man,’ saith the law, ‘be permitted to live’ (kat 
&ruos, pyol, TeOvaTw), intimating that he is free from guilt who exe- 
cutes this sentence (rotro 617) Neyer, Kafapov Tov ToOUTwWY Ta aToKTELVAaVTA 


eivat).”’ 


In both eases it is doubtless enough to render ¢yot, ‘‘it says,”’ 
its function being in each case to call pointed attention to 
the words quoted: but the ‘‘it”’ is by no means ‘‘indefinite”’ 
in the sense that its reference was not very definitely con- 
ceived. On the second instance of its occurrence Wolf com- 
ments: ‘‘s. 6 movikds vouos,”’ * while Schaefer says: * 


66 : : ; : 

Pleonastice positum cum yéyparrae praecesserit. Verumtamen 

h. |. sensum paulo magis juvat quam ubi post ¢fzov, ef7e, continuo 
sequitur édnv, eon. Ad dnoi subaudi 6 voyobérns.”’ 


These instances will supply us with typical examples of the 
‘‘absolute”’ @yat; and, in this sense, ‘‘subjectless gnci”’ is of 
very common occurrence indeed in Greek literature. 

But really ‘‘subjectless dyct,’’ i. e., dyot without any im- 
plied subject in context or common knowledge, which there- 
fore we must take quite indefinitely, is very rare indeed, if 
not non-existent. Perhaps one of the most likely instances of 
such a usage is offered us by a passage in Plutarch’s “ Con- 
solatio ad Apollonium,”’ 34. Holland’s old version of it runs 
thus: * 

“ And verily in regard of him who is now in a blessed estate, it has 


not been naturall for him to remaine in this life longer than the terme 
prefixed and limited unto him; but after he had honestly performed 


48 Reiske-Schaefer, v. 579. 44 Op. cit., p. 581. 
4 P, 119 F (Wyttenbach, I. 11. 470). 46 P, 530 (20-30). 


320 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the course of his time, it was needfull and requisit for him to take the 
way for to returne unto his destinie that called for him to come unto 
her.” 


From this we may at least learn that dyoiv here presented 
some difficulty, as Holland passes it by unrendered. The com- 
mon Latin version restores it, reading the last clause thus: 
‘‘Sed ita postulabit natura ut hoc expleto fatale quod aiunt 
iter conficeret, revocante eum jam ad se natura’’; the Greek 
running thus: ‘‘a\X’ eiraKxTws TovTov éxmA\NoavTe pos THV 
eluapuerny érravaryew Topelay, Kadovons avThs, dynoliv, On pos 
éauTnv.”’ The theory of the Latin version obviously is that 
onotv here is to be taken indefinitely, that is as an index hand 
pointing to a current designation of death as an entering 
upon the ‘‘fated journey’’ — 7 eiwapyévn wopeia. This is ex- 
plained to us by Wyttenbach’s note: ” 


““dnotv] non debebat offendere viros doctos. Est ut azt poeta ille 
unde hoc sumptum est. Videt hoc et Reiskius. Correxi versionem. De 
Tragici dicto in Animadversibus dicetur.”’ 


Accordingly, in the Animadversions,* he addresses himself 
first to showing that the expression here signalized was a 
current poetical saying — appealing to Plato,® Julian, Philo; 
and then adds: 


“Ceterum ¢yoty ita elliptice usitatum est: v. c. Plutarcho, p. 
135 B., 817 D., Dion. Chrys.j p. 493 D., 5382 A., 562 B. Notavit 
et Uptonus ad Epict. in Indice. In annotatoribus ad Lambertum 
Bosium de Ellipsibus unus Schoettgenius, idque ex uno Paulo 
Apostolo hune usum annotavit, p. 74. Et. Latine ita dicitur znqwit, 


47 T, ii. 470. 48 VI, u. 791. 

49 Phaedo, 401 B. (115): ‘‘in these arrayed, [the soul] is ready to go on her 
journey to the world below, when her time comes. You, Simmias and Cebes, and 
all other men, will depart at some time or other. Me already, as the tragic poet 
would say, the voice of fate calls (€ué 5 viv Hin Karel, hain av avip tpay.xds, F 
eiuapuevn).”’ The other passages adduced witness only to the currency of the phrase 
% eluappern topeia. But the language of both Plutarch and Plato would seem to im- 
ply that the “calling” is certainly a part of the quotation. 

5° Precepta Sanit. Tuend., 135 B., ob xara ye riv Euhv, bn, yrounv. Wytt.: 
¢n notat alterius dictum ut alibi ¢nai, de quo diximus, p. 119 F.” 


Cin 
€ 





ble S winery Oeil URES AY Oo mia OLEOAY Sr ByA| 


quod monuerunt J. F. Gronovius et A. Drakenborch. ad Livium 
xxxlv. 3, J. A. Ernestus in Clav. Cic. voce Inquit.” 


It does not seem, however, that Wyttenbach would have us 
read the not here quite indefinitely, as adducing for ex- 
ample a current saying: judging from his own paraphrase 
this might appear to him as a certain exaggeration of its 
implication. Its office would seem rather to be to call atten- 
tion to the words, to which it is adjoined, as quoted, and 
thus, in the good understanding implied to exist between 
the writer and his readers, to point definitely to its source: 
so that it might be a proper note to it to say, ‘‘subaudi 6 
TpaylKos, vel 6 months’? — and this might be done with a 
considerable emphasis on the 6; nay, the actual name of the 
poet, well known to both writer and reader, though now lost 
to.us, might equally well be the subauditum, and such, in- 
deed, may be the implication of the subauditum suggested 
by Wyttenbach: wt art poeta rlle unde hoc scriptum est. Surely, 
an instance like this is far from a clear case of the absolutely 
indefinite or even generally undefining use of dyct. 

Among the references with which Wyttenbach supports 
his note, the most promising sends us to Epictetus, whose 
“Discourses”? abound in the most varied use of @yci, and 
offer us at the same time one of our most valuable sources of 
knowledge of the Greek in common use near the times of the 
apostles.*1 We meet with many instances here which it has 
been customary to explain as cases of g@yci in a wholly in- 
definite reference. But the matter is somewhat complicated 
by the facts that we are not reading here Epictetus’ “ Dis- 
courses’”’ pure and simple, but Arrian’s report of them; and 
that Arrian may exercise his undoubted right to slip in a 
gynot of his own whenever he specially wishes to keep his 
readers’ attention fixed upon the fact that they are his 
master’s words he is setting down, or perhaps even merely 
out of the abiding sense, on his own part, that he is report- 
ing Epictetus and not writing out of his own mind. When 


51 Cf. Heinrici as above, p. 481; and Blass, ‘‘Gram. of New Testament 
Greek,” English translation, p. 2. 


322 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


such a ¢not occurs at the beginning of a section it gives no 
trouble: every reader recognizes it at once as Arrian’s. But 
when it occurs unexpectedly in the midst of a vivacious dis- 
cussion, the reader who is not carrying with him the sense 
of Arrian’s personality, standing behind the Epictetus he is 
attending to, is very apt to be stumbled by it, and to resort 
to some explanation of it on the theory that it is Epictetus’ 
own and is to find its interpretation in the context. An at- 
tempt has been made by Schenkl in the index to his edition 
of Epictetus * to distinguish between the instances in which 
gynot occurs “‘inter Epicteti verba ab Arriano servata,’’ and 
those in which it occurs “‘inter Arriani verba.”’ It will be 
found that most of the instances where it has been thought 
markedly indefinite in its reference are classed by him in the 
second group and are thus made very definite indeed — the 
standing subauditum being ‘‘Epictetus.’’ Opinions will, no 
doubt, differ as to the proper classification of a number of 
these: and in any case many instances remain which cannot 
naturally be so explained — occurring as they do in the 
midst of vividly conceived dramatic passages. In this very 
vividness of dramatic action, however, is doubtless to be 
found the explanation of these instances. So far are the verbs 
here from being impersonal, that the speakers in these little 
dialogues stood out before Epictetus’ mind’s eye as actual 
persons; and it is therefore that he so freely refers to them 
with his vivid ¢yot. 

The following are some of the most striking examples of 
his usage of the word. ‘‘ But now we admit that virtue pro- 
duces one thing, and we declare that approaching near to it 
is another thing, namely progress or improvement. Such a 
person, @yoty, is already able to read Chrysippus by himself. 
Indeed, sir, you are making great progress’’ (i, 4, 9).°’ Here 
Schenkl suggests that the dyotv is Arrian’s, and this would 
seem to be a good suggestion, as it illuminates the passage 


2 “Hpicteti Dissertationes,” etc. (Lipsia, 1894), Index, pp. 701, 702. 
8 We purposely use Long’s translation, which, in all these instances, proceeds 
on the theory that the ¢yci is Epictetus’ own. 


WD ANS. a SCRIP LURE SAYS 2’) “GOD SAYS” 323 


in more ways than one. If not, the subauditum would seem 
to be the collocutor of the paragraph: a ‘‘some one,” no 
doubt, but rather the ‘‘some one”’ most prominent in the 
mind of writer and reader in this discussion. ‘‘But a man 
may say, Whence shall I get bread to eat, when I have 
nothing (kal 700ev dayw, doi, undev Exwv;) ?” (i. 9, 8). Here 
again the @yat seems best explained as Arrian’s (Schenkl): 
if not, the subauditum is again the collocutor prominent 
through the context, and only, in that sense, indefinite. 
‘“Who made these things and devised them? ‘No one,’ you 
say (dnoiv). O amazing shamelessness and stupidity”’ (i. 16, 
8). The reference is to the collocutor. ‘‘ They are thieves and 
robbers you may say (kAémra, dnotv, eiot....)’’ (1. 18, 3). 
Either Arrian’s (Schenkl), or with the collocutor as the sub- 
auditum. ‘‘How can you conquer the opinion of another 
man? By applying terror to it, he replies (¢yciv), I will 
conquer it” (i, 29, 12). Subaud? the collocutor. ‘‘ For why, a 
man says (gyat), do I not know the beautiful and the ugly?”’ 
Gi, 11, ?). Either Arrian’s (Schenkl), or subaudi the col- 
locutor. ‘‘ How, he replies (¢yciv), am I not good ?”’ (ii, 13, 17). 
Either Arrian’s (Schenkl), or subaudi the collocutor. So also 
similarly in 11, 22, 4; ili, 2, 5; i1, 5, 1, ete. Cf. also i, 23, 16; 
ili, 3, 12; 9, 15; 20, 12; 26, 19. Similarly, in the “ Fragments ”’ 
we have this: ‘‘ They are amusing fellows, said he (gy = 
Epictetus), who are proud of the things which are not in our 
power. A man says, I (é€yw, @ynot) am better than you, for I 
possess much land and you are wasting with hunger. Another 
says (GAdos Aeyel)..... ”(“Frag.,” xvili. [Schw., 16 ]). Here the 
gnot is brought in as the initial member of a series and in 
contrast with dos Neyer: it would seem to be Epictetus’ own, 
therefore, and to mean ‘‘says one,” as distinguished from 
another; and thus it appears to be the most likely instance 
of the ‘‘indefinite @yct’”’ in the whole mass. But even it seems 
an essentially different locution from the really indefinite 
Pitismsaid, 9 on dit... manisact.’ 

A glance over the whole usage of gyai in Arrian-Epictetus 
leaves on the mind a keen sense of the lively way in which the 


324 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


word must have been interjected into Greek conversation, 
but does not greatly alter the impression of its essential 
implication which we derive from the general use of the word. 
Take a single instance of its current use in the “ Discourses”’ 
in its relation to kindred words: 


“So also Diogenes somewhere says (zou Aéyer) that there exists but 
one means of obtaining freedom — to die contentedly, and he writes 
(ypader) to the king of the Persians, ‘You cannot enslave the city of 
the Athenians, any more,’ says he (¢yaiv), ‘than fishes.’ ‘How ? Can 
I not catch them ?’ ‘If you catch them,’ says he (¢yciv), ‘they will 
immediately leave you and be gone, just like fishes: for whatever one 
of them you catch dies, and if these men die when they are caught, 
what good will your preparations do you?’”’ (iv, 1, 30). 


The lively effect given by such unexpected interpositions of 
oynoly is lost in our decorous translation of the New Testa- 
ment examples: but it exists in them too. Thus: ‘‘ But she, 
being urged on by her mother, ‘Give me,’ says she, ‘here 
upon a charger, the head of John the Baptist’’’ (Matt. xiv. 
8); ‘‘But he, ‘Master, speak,’ says he”’ (Luke vii. 40); ‘‘ But 
Peter to them, ‘Repent,’ says he, ‘and be baptized each one 
of you’” (Acts ii. 38); ‘‘‘ Let those among you,’ says he, ‘that 
are able, go down with me’” (Acts xxv. 5); ‘‘‘ To-morrow,’ 
says he, ‘thou shalt hear him’’’ (Acts xxv. 22); ‘‘But Paul, 
‘I am not mad,’ says he, ‘most noble Festus’’’ (Acts xxvi. 
25).°* The main function of not then would appear to be to 
keep the consciousness of the speaker reported clearly be- 
fore the mind of the reader. It is therefore often used to 
mark the transition from indirect to direct quotation *: and 
it lent itself readily, therefore, to mark the adduction both 

54 The matter of this interposition is investigated for Plato by Stallbaum, p. 
472 D., 580 D.—where he seems to have collected all the instances of interposed 
gaue in Plato. Cf. also Bornemann and Sauppe on Xenophon’s Memorab., 
iil. 5, 13, and the indices of Schenkl on Arrian-Epictetus and Thieme-Sturz on 
Xenophon (sub. voc. dévat). 

5 On Acts xxv. 5, Blass has this note: “5 fit transitus ex or. obliqua in 
rectam, ut I. 4 al; hinc ¢noiv interpositum ut I. 4 B.,” i. e., in the Western text of 


I, 4, which reads: “‘‘Which ye heard,’ says he, ‘from my mouth.’” The inter- 
position of a “‘he says,’’ or some similar phrase, to keep the consciousness of the 





EE SAYS: 7) SSCRIPTURE SAYS:'7)" GOD SAYS’” S20 


of objections and of literary citations. But, one would 
imagine, it did not very readily lend itself to vague and 
indefinite references. 

If we desire to find cases of ‘‘subjectless \éyer’”’? in any 
way similar to those of ¢@yci, we must apparently turn our 
back on profane Greek altogether.*® We have fortunately in 
Philo, however, an author, the circumstances of whose writ- 
ing made literary quotation as frequent with him as oral is in 
the lively pages of Epictetus’ “ Discourses.’’ And in Philo’s 
treatises \éyer takes its place by the side of its more common 
kinsman @gyot, and is used in much the same way, though 
naturally somewhat less frequently. In harmony with his 
fundamental viewpoint — which looked on the Scriptures 
as a body of oracular sayings — Philo adduces Scripture 
commonly with verbs of ‘‘saying’’ — dyai, Néyerar, Eyer, 
eimey (yéyparra: falling into the background). Passages so 
adduced are often woven into the fabric of his discussion of 
the contents of Scripture; and where the words adduced are 
words of a speaker in the Biblical narrative, the subject of 
the g@not or Aé€yee Which introduces them naturally is often 
this speaker — whether God or some other person. Equally 
often, however, the subject given immediately or indirectly 
in the context is something outside of the narrative that is 
dealt with: in this case it is sometimes Moses, or ‘‘the 
prophet,” or ‘‘the lawgiver’’ — at other times, ‘‘the Holy 
Word,” or ‘‘the sacred Word,” or ‘‘the Oracle,” or ‘‘the 
Oracles”’ (6 Oetos Adyos, 6 iepos NOYos, 6 XPNoLUOs, TO NOYLOV, OF 
xXpnopol, Ta Oya) — at other times still it is ‘‘God,” under 
various designations. Often, however, the verb — ¢dyot or 
Neyer — stands not only without expressed subject, but 
equally without indicated subject. The rendering of these 
cases has given students of Philo some trouble, arising out 


) 


hearer or reader bright on the fact that the words before him are quoted words is, 
of course, a general linguistic and not a specifically Greek usage. It is found in all 
languages. A Hebrew instance, for example, may be found in I Kgs. ii. 4. 

56 Schenk! catalogues in the “‘ Discourses” of Epictetus two cases of inter- 
posited Aéyer, quite in the style of ¢nci—iii. 19, 1 and “ Fragment,” xxi. 10 — but 
in both cases the subject is expressed. 


326 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


of the apparent confusion, when the subject is expressed, 
of the reference of the verb, — now to a speaker in the text 
of Scripture and now to the author of the particular Scrip- 
ture, to God as the author of all Scripture, or to Scripture 
itself conceived as a living Word. This apparent confusion is 
due solely to Philo’s fundamental conception of Scripture as 
an oracular book, which leads him to deal with its text as 
itself the Word of God: he has himself fully explained the 
matter,” and we should be able to steer clear of serious 
difficulties with his explanation in our hands. 

Nevertheless, a somewhat mechanical mode of dealing 
with his citations has produced, on more than one occasion, 
certain odd results. Prof. Ryle says: * 


“The commonest forms of quotation employed by Philo are ¢ya%, 
elrev, Neyer, NeyeTar, yeypatrar yap. Whether the subject of dnai be 
Moses or Scripture personified cannot in many cases be determined.” 


In no case is the subject strictly indeterminate, however, and 
the failure to determine it aright may introduce confusion. 
Thus, for example, in “‘De Confus. Ling.,” § 26 (Mangey, i. 
424), Philo mentions the Book of Judges, and cites it with 
the subjectless @yot. Prof. Ryle comments thus: ® 


‘He does not mention any opinion as to authorship, and intro- 
duces his quotation with his usual formula gyciv. We are hardly 
justified in assuming that Philo intended Moses as the subject of 
gnolv, and regarded him as the author of Judges (so Dr. Pick, Journal 
of Biblical Literature, 1884). Moses is doubtless often spoken of by 
Philo as if he were the personification of the Inspired Word; but we 
cannot safely extend this idea beyond the range of the Pentateuch. 
All that we can say is that ¢noiv, used in this quotation from Judges, 
refers either to the unknown writer of this book or to the personifi- 
cation of Holy Scripture.” 


Or else, we may add, to God, the real author, in Philo’s con- 
ception, of every word of Scripture. Prof. Ryle, however, has 


87 In “De Vita Mosis,” iii. 23. 68 “ Philo and Holy Scripture,” p. xlv. 
BLO). Clis, (Pp. EXV, 





esa > oO R LE TURE SAYS Wai GOD ISAYS? 327 


not caught precisely Dr. Pick’s meaning: Dr. Pick does not 
commit himself to the extravagant view that wherever sub- 
jectless @not occurs in Philo the subaudttum ‘‘ Moses’’ is im- 
plied: he only says, in direct words, that here — in this 
special passage — ‘‘ Moses is introduced as speaking.” It 
would seem obvious that he had a text before him which 
read ‘‘ Moses says,’’ and not simply ‘‘says,’’ at this place. 
This text was doubtless nothing other than Yonge’s English 
translation, which reads Moses here, as often elsewhere with 
as little warrant: ‘‘‘ For,’ says Moses, ‘Gideon swore, etc.’’’ 
The incident illustrates the evil of mechanically supplying a 
supplement to these subjectless verbs — which cannot in- 
deed be understood except on the basis of Philo’s primary 
principle, that it is all one to say ‘‘ Moses says,”’ “‘the Scrip- 
ture says,” or ‘‘ God says.’’ The simple fact here is that Philo 
quotes Judges, as he does the rest of Scripture, with the sub- 
jectless ‘‘says,’’ and with the same implication, viz., that 
Judges is to him a part of the Word of God. 

As has been already hinted, by all means the commonest 
verb used by Philo thus, — without expressed or obviously 
indicated subject, — to introduce a Scripture passage, is 
gonot. Perhaps, however, the one instance to which we have 
incidentally adverted will suffice to illustrate the usage — 
other instances of which may be seen on nearly every page 
of Philo’s treatises. It is of more interest for us to note that 
Neyer seems also to be used in the same subjectless way — 
examples of which may be seen, for instance, in the follow- 
ing places, “Legg. Allegor.,’” i, 15; ii, 4; ili, 8; “Quod Det. 
Bote inside. a4 os mlWes Posterit..@aini,” 9.) 22-152") De Gi- 
gant.,”’ 11; 12; ‘“ De Confus. Ling.,”’ 32; “‘ De Migrat. Abrah.,” 
11; ‘“‘Fragment. ex Joh. Monast.” (ii, 668). In “Legg. Al- 
legor.,”’ i, 15, for instance, we have a string of quotations 
without obvious subject, introduced, the first by the sub- 
jectless dnotvy, the next by the equally subjectless émuéper 
madw, and the third (from Exod. xx. 23) by éyer 6€ xai 
év érépois. In “‘ Legg. Allegor.,”’ ii, 4, we have Gen. ii. 19 intro- 

60 Vol. 11. p. 27. 


328 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


duced by \éeyet yap without any obvious subject. Yonge trans- 
lates this too by ‘‘For Moses says’”’: but to obtain warrant 
for this we should have to go back two pages and a half (of 
Richter’s text), quite to the beginning of the treatise, where 
we find an apostrophe to the ‘‘prophet.”’ In “De Posterit. 
Caini,’’ 22, Néyer Ext wev "ABpady ovtws (Gen. xi. 29), though 
Yonge supplies ‘‘ Moses” again, that would seem to be de- 
monstrably absurd, as the passage proceeds to place ‘‘ Moses,”’ 
in parallelism with Abraham, in the object. Similarly the pas- 
sages adduced from “De Gigant.,’’ 11 and 12 (Num. xiv. 44 
and Deut. xxxiv. 6) are about Moses, and it would scarcely 
do to fill out the ellipsis of subject with his name. Examples 
need not, however, be multiplied. 

It would seem quite clear that both the subjectless dnat 
frequently, and the subjectless Aéyer less often, occur in Philo 
after a fashion quite similar to the instances adduced from 
the New Testament. And it would seem to be equally clear 
that the lack of a subject in their case is not indicative of 
indefiniteness, but rather of definiteness in their reference. 
Philo does not adduce passages of Scripture with the bare 
gynot or Neyer because he knows or cares very little whence 
they come or with what authority; but because he and his 
readers alike both know so well the source whence they are 
derived, and yield so unquestionably to its authority, that it 
is unnecessary to pause to indicate either. The use of the bare 
gonot or Neyer in citations from Scripture is in his case, ob- 
viously, the outgrowth and the culminating sign of his ab- 
solute confidence in Scripture as the living voice of God, 
fully recognized as such both by himself and his readers. In 
the same sense in which to the dying Sir Walter Scott there 
was but one ‘‘ Book,” to him and his readers there was but 
one authoritative divine Word, and all that was necessary in 
adducing it was to indicate the fact of adduction. The ¢yat 
or Aeyee serves thus primarily the function of ‘quotation 
marks’’ in modern usage: but under such circumstances and 
with such implications that bare quotation marks carry with 
them the assurance that the words adduced are divine words. 





LL SAYS) SGRIPTURE SAYS:7'GODISAYSY 329 


It would seem to be very easy, in these circumstances, to 
give ourselves more uneasiness than is at all necessary as to 
the precise subauditum which we are to assume with these 
verbs. It may serve very well to render them simply, ‘‘It 
says,’ with the implication that Philo is using the codex of 
Scripture as the living voice of God speaking to him and his 
readers. The case, in a word, would seem to be very similar 
to that of the common New Testament formula of quotation 
vyéyparTrac — meaning not that what is adduced is somewhere 
written, but that it is the authoritative law that is being ad- 
duced. Just so, ‘‘It says,’’ in such a case would mean not 
that somebody or something says what is adduced, but that 
the Word of God says it. As the one usage is the natural out- 
crowth of the conception of the Scriptures as a written au- 
thoritative law, the other is the equally natural outgrowth 
of the conception of Scripture as the living voice of God. How 
very natural a development this usage is, may be illustrated 
by the fact that something very similar to it may be met 
with in colloquial English. In the same circles where we may 
hear God spoken of as simply ‘‘ He,”’ as if it were dangerous 
to name His name too freely, we may also occasionally hear 
the Bible quoted with a simple ‘“‘It says,” or even with an 
elision of the ‘‘it,’” as ‘‘’Tsays’’: and yet the ‘‘it,” though 
treated thus cavalierly, is in reality a very emphatic “‘It”’ 
indeed — the phrase being the product of awe in the presence 
of ‘‘the Book,” and importing that there is but one “‘It”’ 
that could be thought of in the case. Somewhat similarly, in 
the case of Philo, the Scriptures are cited with the bare ¢yat, 
deyet, because, in his mind and in the circles which he ad- 
dressed, there stood out so far above all other voices this 
one Voice of God embodied in His Scriptures, that none other 
would be thought of in the case. The phrase is the outgrowth 
of reverence for the Word and of unquestioning submission 
to it: and the fundamental fact is that no special subject is 
expressed simply because none was needed and it would be 
all one whether we understood as subject, Moses, the prophet 
and lawgiver — the holy or sacred Word or the oracle — or 


330 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


finally, God Himself. In any case, and with any subauditum, 
the real subject conceived as speaking is Gop. 


If now, in the light of the facts we have thus brought to 
our recollection, we turn back to the New Testament pas- 
sages in which the Old Testament is cited with a simple ¢yat 
or \éyet, it may not be impossible for us to perceive their real 
character and meaning. There would seem to be absolutely 
no warrant in Greek usage for taking \éye, and but very 
little, if any, for taking gnoi really indefinitely: and even if 
there were, it would be inconceivable that the New Testa- 
ment writers, from their high conception of ‘‘Scripture,”’ 
should have adduced Scripture with a simple ‘‘it is said’? — 
somewhere, by some one — without implication of reverence 
toward the quoted words or recognition of the authority in- 
herent in them. It is rather in the usage of Philo that we find 
the true analogue of these examples. Like Philo, the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews looks upon Scripture as an 
oracular book, and all that it says, God says to him: and 
accordingly, like Philo, he adduces its words with a simple 
‘at says,’ with the full implication that this “‘it says”’ is a 
“God says’”’ also. Whenever the same locution occurs else- 
“where in the New Testament, it bears naturally the same 
implication. There is no reason why we should recognize the 
Philonic ¢@yci in Heb. vill. 5, and deny it in I Cor. vi. 16: or 
why we should recognize the Philonic Neyer in Heb. vui. 8 
and deny it in Acts xill. 35, Rom. ix. 15, xv. 10, IT Cor. vi. 2, 
Gal. ii. 16, or in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14. Only in case it were very 
clear that Paul did not share the high conception of Scrip- 
ture as the living voice of God which underlies this usage in 

6. The reverent use of an indefinite may be illustrated from the mode of 
citation adopted in Heb. ii. 6 — ‘‘one hath somewhere testified’’ —a mode of cita- 
tion not uncommon in Philo [as, for example, de Temul. (ed. Mang., i. 365), ete 
yap rob rs (i. e., Abraham, Gen. xx. 12), and other examples in Bleek, II, i. 239]. 
Delitzsch correctly explains: “The citation is thus introduced with a special 
solemnity, the author naming neither the place whence he takes it nor the original 
speaker, but making use (as Philo frequently) of the vague term zov ris, so that 


the important testimony itself becomes only the more conspicuous, like a grand 
pictured figure in the plainest, narrowest frame.” 


ES OEE 


SULA So agow hte PURE SAY out, GOD. SANS 331 


Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews, could we hesitate to 
understand this phrase in him as we understand it in them. 
But we have seen that such is not the case: and his use in 
adducing Scripture of the subjectless @yct and Aéyer quite in 
their manner is, rightly viewed, only another indication, 
among many, that his conception of Scripture was funda- 
mentally the same with theirs, and it cannot be explained 
away on the assumption that it was fundamentally different. 

It does not indeed follow that on every occasion when a 
Scripture passage is introduced by a @yai or a Aéyer it is to 
be explained as an instance of this subjectless usage — even 
though a subject for it is given or plainly implied in the im- 
mediate context. That is not possible even in Philo, where 
the introductory formula often finds its appropriate subject 
expressed in the preceding context. But it does follow that 
we need not and ought not resort to unnatural expedients 
to find a subject for such a @yot or Aéyer in the context, or 
that acquiescing, whenever that seems more natural, in its 
subjectlessness, we should seek to explain away its high 
implications. Men may differ as to the number of clear 


62 The matter is approached in a sensible and helpful way by Viteau, in his 
“Etude sur le Grec du N. T.: sujet, complement et attribute” (1896), p. 61. He 
is treating of the subject to be mentally supplied, i. e., of the case where the 
reader may be fairly counted upon to supply the subject, and he remarks (¢nter 
alia): ‘‘76 (9). There is a kind of mental subject peculiar to the New Testament. 
When events of the Old Testament are spoken of, these events are supposed to 
be known to the reader or the hearer, who is invited to supply the subject of the 
verb mentally. ... 77 (10). There is still another kind of mental subject peculiar 
to the New Testament and kindred to the preceding. In the citations made by 
the New Testament the subject is often lacking, as well for the verb which an- 
nounces the citation as for the verb in the citation itself. The reader is supposed 
to recognize the passage and is invited to supply the subject. (a) For the verbs 
which announce the citation there occur as subjects: 6 6eds, Acts 11. 17; 6 rpopjrns, 
Acts vil. 48; Aaveid, Rom. iv. 6; Mwiofs, Rom. x. 19; ‘Hoaias, Rom. xv. 12; } yeaa, 
Gal. iv. 30. When the verb has no subject, the reader is to supply it mentally: 
Acts xiii. 34, 35, elonxev and deve, the subject is 6 6eds, according to the LXX., 
Es. lv. 3, and Ps. xv. 10; Rom. xv. 10, raw dA€ver (6 Mwio fs), according to Deut. 
xxxil. 43; Eph. iv. 8, Aéyee (6 Geds or Aaveid), according to Ps. lxvii. 19; Eph. v. 14, 
ud A€yer, those who regard the passage as imitated or partially cited from the Old 
Testament give ‘Hoaias as the subject of \éye, according to Isa. lx. 1, 2, but if we 
regard this passage as containing some «da of an early hymn (in imitation of 


do2 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


instances of such a usage, that may be counted in the New 
Testament. But most will doubtless agree that some may be 
counted: and will doubtless place among them Eph. iv. 8 
and v. 14. Some will contend, no doubt, that in the latter 
of these texts, the passage adduced is not derived from the 
Old Testament at all. That, however, is ‘‘another story,’’ on 
which we cannot enter now, but on which we must be content 
to differ. We pause only to say that we reckon among the 
reasons why we should think the citation here is derived from 
the Old Testament, just its adduction by 616 Aéye. — which 
would seem to advise us that Paul intended to quote the 
oracular Word. 

There may be room for difference of opinion again as to 
the precise subauditum which it will be most natural to as- 
sume with these subjectless verbs: whether 6 @eds or ) ypad7. 
In our view it makes no real difference in their implication: 
for, in our view, the very essence of the case is, that, under 
the force of their conception of the Scriptures as an oracular 
book, it was all one to the New Testament writers whether 
they said ‘‘God says” or ‘‘Scripture says.’’ This is made very 
clear, as their real standpoint, by their double identification 
of Scripture with God and God with Scripture, to which we 
adverted at the beginning of this paper, and by which Paul, 
for example, could say alike ‘‘the Scripture saith to Pharaoh”’ 
(Rom. ix. 17) and ‘‘God.... saith, Thou wilt not give thy . 
Holy One to see corruption”’ (Acts xiii. 34). We may well be 
content in the New Testament as in Philo to translate the 
phrase wherever it occurs, “It says’’ — with the implication 
that this ‘‘It says” is the same as ‘“‘Scripture says,’’ and that 
this ‘‘Seripture says’’ is the same as ‘‘God says.”’ It is this 
implication that is really the fundamental fact in the case. 
Isaiah) we must supply as the subject ris, ‘it is said,’ ‘it is sung’ (96a); Heb. viii. 
5, dnoiv (6 beds), according to Ex. xxv. 40.”’ We do not accord, of course, with the 


remark on Eph. v. 14; and we miss in Viteau’s remarks the expected reference to 
the deeper fact in the case. 





IX 
“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 





~ 
~~ 


ow 


“THE ORACLES OF GOD”: 


THE purpose of this paper is to bring together somewhat 
more fully than can be easily found in one place elsewhere, 
the material for forming a judgment as to the sense borne by 
the term [7a] \dyua, as it appears in the pages of the New 
Testament. This term occurs only four times in the New 
Testament. The passages, as translated by the English 
revisers of 1881, are as follows: “‘Moses ...who received 
living oracles to give unto us” (Acts vii. 38); ‘‘They [the 
Jews | were intrusted with the oracles of God’’ (Rom. iii. 2); 
‘“When by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye 
have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of 
the first principles of the oracles of God”’ (Heb. v. 12); ‘‘If 
any man speaketh let him speak as it were oracles of God”’ 
(I Peter iv. 11). The general sense of the term is obvious on 
the face of things: and the commentators certainly do not 
go wholly wrong in explaining it. But the minor differences 
that emerge in their explanations are numerous, and seem 
frequently to evince an insufficient examination of the usage 
of the word: and the references by which they support their 
several views are not always accessible to readers who would 
fain test them, so that the varying explanations stand, in the 
eyes of many, as only so many obiter dicta between which 
choice must be made, if choice is made at all, purely arbi- 
trarily. It has seemed, therefore, as if it would not be with- 
out its value if the usage of the word were exhibited in 
sufficient fullness to serve as some sort of a touchstone of the 
explanations that have been offered of it. We are sure, at any 
rate, that students of the New Testament remote from libra- 
ries will not be sorry to have at hand a tolerably full account 
of the usage of the word: and we are not without hope that 


1 From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Vol. XI. 1900, pp. 217-260. 
335 


336 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


a comprehensive view of it may help to correct some long- 
standing errors concerning its exact meaning, and may, in- 
deed, point not obscurely to its true connotation — which is 
not without interesting implications. Upheld by this hope we 
shall essay to pass in rapid review the usage of the term in 
Classic, Hellenistic and Patristic Greek, and then to ask 
what, in the light of this usage, the word is likely to have 
meant to the writers of the New Testament. 

I. It may be just as well at the outset to disabuse our 
minds of any presumption that a diminutive sense is in- 
herent in the term \dyov, as a result of its very form.? 
Whether we explain it with Meyer-Weiss *® as the neuter of 
oytos and point to Aoylétov * as the proper diminutive of this 
stem; or look upon it with Sanday-Headlam ° as originally 
the diminutive of Adéyos, whose place as such was subse- 
quently, viz., when it acquired the special sense of ‘‘oracle,”’ 
taken by the strengthened diminutive Aoyiécvovy — it remains 
true that no trace of a diminutive sense attaches to it as we 
meet it on the pages of Greek literature.® 

We are pointed, to besure, to a scholium on the “Frogs”’ of 
Aristophanes (line 942) as indicating the contrary. The pas- 
sage is the well-known one in which Euripides is made to 

2 So very commonly: as, e. g., by Grimm (“Lexicon in N. T.,’’ s. v.), Bleek 
(‘Der Brief an die Hebrder,” ii. 2, 114, on Heb. v. 12), Philippi (‘‘Com. on 
Romans,” E. T., i. 105, on Rom. iii. 2), Morrison (“‘ Expos. of 3d Chap. of Rom.,” 
p. 14). 3 “Com. on Romans,” on Rom. iii. 2 (E. T., 1. 140, note 1). 

4 Plato, “ Eryx.,” 401, E.: éraparré ye abrov . . . 7d Novyidtov; Isocrates, ‘‘Contra 
Sophistas,” 295 B. (Didot, 191): rocotrw 5& xelpouvs éyévovto T&v wepi ras Epidas 
kaduvdovperwy, Scov odTo wey ToLradra Aovidta duekvovres . . .; Aristophanes, ‘‘ Vesp.,” 
64: add’ Eorw Huiv Aovyidiov yrapunv exov | budv pev abr&v odxi deEwrepov. Cf. Blaydes 
on the passage in Aristophanes. 

5 “Com. on Rom.,” on Rom. ii. 2: ‘‘ The old account of Aéytov as a diminutive 
of Aéyos is probably correct, though Mey.-W. make it neuter of Aéytos on the ground 
that Noyidioy is the proper diminutive. The form doyiéiov is rather a strengthened 
diminutive which, by a process common in language, took the place of Aéyvov when 
it acquired the sense of ‘oracle.’’? When they add that it was as ‘‘a brief condensed 
saying” that the oracle was called Adyov, they have no support in the literature. 

6 Jelf, who looks upon it as a diminutive, cites it as an extreme example of 
the fact that many simple diminutives in -.ov have lost their diminutive force — 


such as @npiov, BiBXlov: Adytov, he says, “‘has assumed a peculiar meaning.” In any 
event, thus, no diminutive meaning clings to Aéytov. 


“THE ORACLES OF GOD” BY A 


respond to Aschylus’ inquiry as to what things he manu- 
factured. ‘‘ Not winged horses,”’ is the reply (as Wheelwright 
translates it), ‘‘ By Jupiter, nor goat-stags, such as thou, Like 
paintings on the Median tapestry, But as from thee I first 
received the art, Swelling with boastful pomp and heavy 
words, I paréd it straight and took away its substance, With 
little words, and walking dialogues,’ And white beet mingled, 
straining from the books A juice of pleasant sayings, — then 
I fed him With monodies, mixing Ctesiphon.”’ It is upon the 
word here translated ‘‘ with little words,” but really mean- 
ing ‘‘verselets’”’ (Blaydes: versiculis) — érvA\tors — that the 
scholium occurs. It runs: ’Avti Tov Noylous urKpots’ ws b€ Bpédos 
BpedtrAXov, Kal eidos eidVA\LOY? OUTW Kal Eros éxtAov.2 That is 
to say, érvAXvov is a diminutive of the same class as BpedtANov 
and eidvAXov,® and means \dyov pkpov. Since the idea of 
smallness is explicit in the adjective attached to A\éyov here, 
surely it is not necessary to discover it also in the noun,” 
especially when what the scholiast is obviously striving to 
say is not that émvAXNows means “‘little wordlets,”’ but ‘‘little 
verses.’’ The presence of uexpots here, rather is conclusive evi- 
dence that doyiows by itself did not convey a diminutive 
meaning to the scholiast. If we are to give Aéyuoy an unex- 
ampled sense here, we might be tempted to take it, there- 
fore, as intended to express the idea ‘‘verses’”’ rather than 
the tautological one of ‘‘little words” or even “‘little maxims”’ 
or ‘‘little sayings.’ And it might fairly be pleaded in favor of 
so doing that Aéy.ov in its current sense of ‘‘oracle”’ not only 
lies close to one of the ordinary meanings of ézos (“‘ Od.,”’ 12, 
- 266; Herod., 1, 13, and often in the Tragedians), but also, 
because oracles were commonly couched in verse, might 
easily come to suggest in popular speech the idea of ‘‘verse,’’ 


7 érvAXlots Kal wepitarots Kal TevTALotoe AEvKOTS. 

8 Dindorf, iv. ii. p. 113, on line 973. 

® Blaydes adds some other instances: ‘‘Ejusdem forme diminutiva sunt 
eldvANov, BpepvAXLov, werpaxvANov, SwiAdALov, KpedAALOY, Eevbdduov.” 

10 With this \éy.ov pexpdy compare the Bpaxéa A6yra Of Justin Martyr, “‘Contra 
Tryph.,”’ c. 18. When the idea of brevity needed to be conveyed, it would seem 
that an adjective expressive of this idea was required to be added. 


338 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


so that a \oywov weKpov would easily obtrude itself as the 
exact synonym of ériAduov, in Euripides’ sense, 1. e., in the 
sense of short broken verses. There is no reason apparent on 
the other hand why we should find a diminutive implication 
in the word as here used, and in any case, if this is intended, 
it is a sense unillustrated by a single instance of usage. 

And the unquestionable learning of Kustathius seems to 
assure us that to Greek ears \oycov did not suggest a diminu- 
tive sense at all. He is commenting on line 339 of the Second 
Book of the “ Iliad,” which runs, 


~ \ , Ve. , e a 
an 67 cvvOeciar TE Kal OpKia Bnoerar utr, 


and he tells us that dpxwov in Homer is not a diminutive, but 
is a formation similar to \éy.vov, which means ‘‘an oracle’’: 
Ovx broKxoptotiKoy 6€ wap’ ‘Ounpw ovdé ... To txviov. “Qsirep d€ 
TA OPKLa TAapWVOUMaGTAL EK TOU OpKOV, OUT Kal EK TOU OYOU TA 
Ayla Hyouv ot xpyopvot.. There is no direct statement here, 
to be sure, that Adyvov is not a diminutive; that statement is 
made — with entire accuracy — only of dpxtov and txmov: ¥ 
nor is the derivation suggested for \déywov, as if it came 
directly from \éyos, perhaps scientifically accurate. But there 
is every indication of clearness of perception in the state- 
ment: and it could scarcely be given the form it has, had 
doyvov stood in Eustathius’ mind as the diminutive of \dyos. 
It obviously represented to him not a diminutive synonym 
of Aoyos, but an equal synonym of xpnopos. What Aoytov stood 
for, in his mind, is very clearly exhibited, further, in a com- 
ment which he makes on the 416th line of the First Book of 
the “Odyssey,” where Telemachus declares that he does not 
‘care for divinations such as my mother seeks, summoning 
a diviner to the hall”’: 
ouTe Oeorporins EuTafouar, Av TWA UATHP 
és weyapoyv Kahéoaca Oeorporrov é£epenrar. 

1. Ed. Bas., i. 177; Rom. i. 233: Weigel’s Leipzig ed. (here used), i. 189. 

12 Liddell and Scott say, s. v.: “‘dpxiov is not with Buttm., “ Lexil.,” s. v., to be 
regarded as a dim. of épxos, but rather as neuter of Spxcos, with which iepéy or iepd 


may be supplied”’; ‘‘ Dim. of ixvos only in form (v. Chandler, “‘Accent.,’”’ § 340).” 
Cf. in general Jelf, “Grammar,” §§ 56, 2, and 335, c (Vol. i. pp. 53, 337). 


a a 


“THE ORACLES OF GOD” O09 


Kustathius wishes us to note that Oeorpd7os means the partis, 
Georpomta his art, and Oeorpdmiov the message he delivers, 
which Eustathius calls the ypyouwdnua, and informs us is de- 
nominated by the Attics also \éyov. He says: "Ioréov 6€ dre 
Geom pomros ev AdXAwS, 6 wavTis. Oeorporia dé, 7 TExYN alTod. OeoT- 
pom.ov O€, TO xpnoumdnua, 6 Kal hOyLoyv d\eyov of ’ArTiKot.8 To 
Kustathius, thus \oy.ov was simply the exact synonym of the 
highest words in use to express a divine communication to 
men — Georpomiorv,'* xpnouwdnua, xpynouos. Similarly Hesy- 
chius’ definition runs: Adyra: Séogata, wavrevuara, (po) dnred- 
bara, Pjuat, xpnouot. In a word, Adyuov differs from Adyos not 
as expressing something smaller than it, but as expressing 
something more sacred. 

The Greek synonymy of the notion ‘‘oracle”’ is at once 
extraordinarily full and very obscure. It is easy to draw up 
a long list of terms — ywarteta, wavrevuata, mpddavra, Oeor- 
pomia, érileomicpuol Béodata, beoriguata, \oy.a, and the like; 
but exceedingly difficult, we do not say to lay down hard and 
fast lines between them, but even to establish any shades of 
difference among them which are consistently reflected in 
usage. M. Bouché-Leclercg, after commenting on the pov- 
erty of the Latin nomenclature, continues as to the Greek: ® 


“The Greek terminology is richer and allows analysis of the differ- 
ent senses, but it is even more confused than abundant. The Greeks, 
possessors of a flexible tongue, capable of rendering all the shades of 
thought, often squandered their treasures, broadening the meaning of 


13 Hd. Bas., pp. 1426, 1427; ed. Rom., p. 69; ed. Leipzig, 1. p. 72. 

14 A scholium on the passage in the “Odyssey”’ brings out the meaning of 
Oeorpériov, to Wit: 76 é& Oe0d Aeyouevor, é 0b Kal Oeompdmos 6 TA TOD Heod Néeywv. Cf. also 
the Homeric Lexicons on the word: e. g., Ebeling, s. v. Seorporin et Ocompdmor: 
“‘Sententia deorum, judicium quod dii (Juppiter potissimum et Appollo) cum vate 
(vel cum deo) communicant, vates cum aliis hominibus, oraculum. Cf. Negelsb., 
H[omerische] Th{eologie], 187. Ap. 87, 4 wavrevpa 76 éx Geo mpodeyouevov. Cf. Suid, 
i. 2, 1144 Hes.”; and Capelle under same heading: ‘‘Alles was von den Géttern 
(besLonders] Apollon und Zeus) angezeigt und durch den eorpéros gedeutet 
wird, ‘die von den Géttern eingegebenen Offenbarungen’ (Negelsb. zu A. 385. 
Cf. ‘Hom. Th.,’ S. 187), also Weissagung, Géttergebot, Gétterbescheid, Orakel.” 

16 “Histoire de la Divination dans |’Antiquité” (Paris, Leroux, 1879), Vol. 


ii. pp. 229, 230. 


340 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


words at pleasure, multiplying synonyms without distinguishing be- 
tween them, and thus disdaining the precision to which they could 
attain without effort. We shall seek in vain for terms especially 
appropriated to divination by oracles. From the verb xpfo@a, which 
signifies in Homer ‘to reveal’ in a general way, come the derivatives 
xpnouos and xpnornpiov. The latter, which dates from Hesiod and the 
Homerides, designates the place where prophecies are dispensed and, 
later, the responses themselves, or the instrument by which they are 
obtained. Xpynoyés, which comes into current usage from the time of 
Solon, is applied without ambiguity to inspired and versified proph- 
ecies, but belongs equally to the responses of the oracles and those of 
free prophets. The word yavreiov in the singular designates ordinarily 
the place of consultation; but in the plural it is applied to the proph- 
ecies themselves of whatever origin. In the last sense it has a crowd 
of synonyms of indeterminate and changeable shades of meaning. The 
grammarians themselves have been obliged to renounce imposing 
rules on the capricious usage and seeking recognition for their artificial 
distinctions. We learn once more the impossibility of erecting precise 
definitions for terms which lack precision.” 


Among the distinctions which have been proposed but 
which usage will not sustain is the discrimination erected by 
the scholiast on Euripides, “‘Phoeniss.,’”’ 907,!° which would 
reserve Oéogata, Jeoriouatra, xpyouot for oracles directly from 
the gods, and assign wavrevar and wavtebuara to the responses 
of the diviners. The grain of truth in this is that in partis, 
pavTever Oar, pavreia, etymologically, what is most prominent 
is the idea of a special unwonted capacity, attention being 
directed by these words to the strong spiritual elevation 
which begets new powers in us. While, on the other hand, in 
feorifew the reference is directly to the divine inspiration, 
which, because it is normally delivered in song, is referred to 
by such forms as deorimdds, Jeorimderv. Xpynouds, on the other 
hand, seems an expression which in itself has little direct 
reference either to the source whence or the form in which 
the oracle comes, but describes the oracle from the point of 
view of what it is in itself — viz., a ‘‘communication”’? — 


16 The scholium runs: Oéogara, Oeoricuata, xpnopol 76 abrd, édéyovrro bé él Oedvs 


pavrevar 6€ kal pavrebuata él uavrewy avOpwrwr. 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 341 


going back, as it does, to xp7v, the original sense of which 
seems to be ‘‘to bestow,” ‘‘to communicate.”’  Aéyrov doubt- 
less may be classed with xpnouds in this respect — it is par 
excellence the ‘‘ utterance,” the ‘‘saying.’’ It would seem to be 
distinguished from ypyopés by having even less reference than 
it to the source whence — something as ‘‘a declaration”’ is 
distinguished from ‘‘a message.” If we suppose a herald com- 
ing with the cry, ‘‘A communication from the Lord,” and 
then, after delivering the message, adding: ‘‘This is His 
utterance,” it might fairly be contended that in strict pre- 
cision the former should be xpyopuos and the latter Néycov, in 
so far as the former term may keep faintly before the mind 
the source of the message as a thing given, while the latter 
may direct the attention to its content as the very thing re- 
ceived, doubtless with a further connotation of its fitness to 
its high origin. Such subtlety of distinction, however, is not 
sure to stamp itself on current use, so that by such ety- 
mological considerations we are not much advanced in deter- 
mining the ordinary connotation of the words in usage. 

A much more famous discrimination, and one which much 
more nearly concerns us at present, has been erected on what 
seems to be a misapprehension of a construction in Thucyd- 
ides. In a passage which has received the compliment of 
imitation by a number of his successors,® the historian is 
describing the agitation caused by the outbreak of the Pe- 

17 The above is abstracted from J. H. Heinr. Schmidt in his ‘‘ Handbuch der 
Lateinischen und Griechischen Synonymik”’ (1889), §21, pp. 77-82. The original 
meaning assigned to xpqv (darretchen, ertheilen) is supported by a reference to 
Vanitéek, p. 250. Surely it is a much more reasonable determination than that 
of Bouché-Leclereq (‘‘ Hist. de ]a Divination,” i. 192), who would derive it from a 
cleromantic idea, as if xpaw signified first of all ‘‘entailler.”’ So he conceives 
dvapecv to refer to the lot, as we say to “draw lots,” as if the Pythoness “drew 
her revelations as we draw lots.” Schmidt refers the use of this word to the early 
idea that the words came up out of the depths of the earth. 

18 FH). g., Polybius, 3, 112, 8: ‘‘ All the oracles preserved in Rome were in every- 
body’s mouth (rdvra 8’ qv ra wap’ abrots \oyia aor Tore bua oTduaros) and every 
temple and house was full of prodigies and miracles: in consequence of which the 
city was one scene of vows, sacrifices, supplicatory processions and prayers”’ 


(Schuchburgh’s translation). Appian, 2, 115, deiwara ra yap &Aoya woAXols verre 
epi ddnv ’Iradlav. Kal pavrevpdrov madaray émipoBwrépwr éurnudvevov. Dionys. Hal., 


342 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


loponnesian war, one symptom of which was the passion for 
oracles which was developed. ‘‘ All Hellas,’ he says,’ ‘‘ was 
excited by the coming conflict between the two cities. Many 
were the prophecies circulated, and many the oracles chanted 
by diviners (kat 7oAXa pev Noyta EAEYorTO, TONG O€ XPNTLOAOYOL 
yjoov), not only in the cities about to engage in the struggle, 
but throughout Hellas.’’ And again, as the Lacedemonians 
approached the city, one of the marks he, at a later point, 
notes of the increasing excitement is that ‘‘soothsayers (xpno- 
uodoyot) were repeating oracles (jdov xpnopyotls) of the most 
different kinds, which all found in some one or other en- 
thusiastic listeners.’’ 7? On a casual glance the distinction ap- 
pears to lie on the surface of the former passage that oyia 
are oracles in prose and xpyouol oracles in verse: and so the 
scholiast 7! on the passage, followed by Suidas * defines. But 
it is immediately obvious on the most cursory glance into 
Greek literature that the distinction thus suggested will not 
hold. The xpyopot are, to be sure, commonly spoken of as 
sung; and the group of words xpynouq@ddos, xpnouwoéw, xpno- 
Mwola, XpnoUwonua, xpnouwdons, Xpnoumdrkos, witnesses to the 
intimate connection of the two ideas. But this arises out of 
the nature of the case, rather than out of any special sense 
attached to the word xpynopos: and accordingly, by the side 
of this group of words, we have others which, on the one 
hand, compound xpyoués with terms not implicative of sing- 
ing (xenounyopew, xXpnouaryopns — xpnoModoTéw, xXpnopuoddrys, 
XPNTUOOOTHUA — XpnoLooyEw, XpNnTUoOYos, Xono“odoyla, xpno- 
MOoNOYLOV, XPNTMOAOYLKN, XPnoWor\EoXNS — XpynopoTrowds), and, on 
the other hand, compound other words for oracles with words 
denoting singing (feomimdéw, Oeormiwdnua, Oeamiwdds). The fact 


““Ant.,” vil. 68: xpnopol 7’ jdovro & moddots xwpios krA. Dio Cassius, 431, 66 
and 273, 64, where we read of Aéya ravtota jderOo. 

19 1. 8, Jowett’s translation (i. p. 99). 

20 11. 21, Jowett’s translation (i. 109). 

21 In Didot’s appendix, p. 416: Ady.a éore Ta Tapa Tod Oeod Neyoueva KaTadoyadnv: 
Xpnopol 6é oirives Euperpws A€yorTal, Deohopovpéevwy TaV NEYOrTWY. 

22 Hd. Bekker, p. 666: Ady.a Ta apa Oeod eyoueva KaTadoyadnv, xpynopuol 5é 
oirives EupéeTpws EyovTa’ Oeohopovpevwy Tar eyovTwr. 


“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 343 


is that, as J. H. Heinr. Schmidt ** points out in an interesting 
discussion, the natural expression of elevated feeling was 
originally in song: so that the singer comes before the poet 
and the poet before the speaker. It was thus as natural for 
the ancients to say vati-cinium as it is for moderns to say 
Weis-sagung or sooth-saying: but as the custom of written 
literature gradually transformed the consciousness of men, 
their thought became more logical and less pictorial until 
even the Pythia ceased at last to speak in verse. Meanwhile, 
old custom dominated the oracles. They were chanted: they 
were couched in verse: and the terms which had been framed 
to describe them continued to bear this implication. Even 
when called \éoyra, they prove to be ordinarily ** in verse; 
and these also are said to be sung, as we read, for example, 
in Dio Cassius (431, 66 and 2738, 64): \oy.a wavrota Héero. What 
appears to be a somewhat constant equivalence in usage 
of the two terms xpynopuds and Ndy.ov, spread broadly over the 
face of Greek literature, seems in any event to negative the 
proposed distinction. Nor does the passage in Thucydides 
when more closely examined afford any real ground for it. 
After all, \oyva and xpyopot are not contrasted in this passage: 
the word xpynopot does not even occur in it. The stress of the 
distinction falls, indeed, not on the nouns, but on the verbs, 
the point of the remark being that oracles were scattered 
among the people by every possible method.” If we add that 

23 In his ‘Handbuch der Lateinischen und Griechischen Synonymik”’ (Leip- 
zig, 1889), § 21 (pp. 77-82). 

24 So for example in Aristophanes’ “Knights” passim (see below) and in 
Porphyry’s collection of Oracles. 

25 This is the explanation of Croiset in the very sensible brief note he gives on 
the passage in his attractive edition of Thucydides (Paris, Hachette & Cie., 1886): 
He says: ‘‘Aéya, oracles: according to the scholiast, oracles in prose in contrast 
with xpnowol or oracles in verse; but it may be seen in Aristophanes (‘‘ Knights,” 
999-1002), that the two expressions were synonyms: the distinction bears here 
only on the manner in which these oracles were spread among the people; é\éyorro 
signifies: they were hawked about from mouth to mouth, without the intervention 
of the diviners (é\éyor7o in the plural, despite the neuter subject, because it is the 
idea of diversity that dominates, rather than an idea of collectivity; cf. Curtius 


“Gr. gr.,” § 363, Rem. 1); #é0v is the appropriate word in speaking of xpnopuoddyou 
or oracle-deliverers whose business was to recite the prophecies in verse.” 


344 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the second zoAA4& is probably not to be resolved into zo\Xods 
xpnopovs,° the xpyopols being derived from the xpnopwdoyot, 
but is to have \oyca supplied with it from the preceding 
clause, the assumed distinction between \doy.a and xpyopot 
goes up at once in smoke. Adéya alone are spoken of: and 
these Aoyea are said to be both spoken and sung.” 

So easy and frequent is the interchange between the two 
terms that it seems difficult to allow even the more wary 
attempts of modern commentators to discriminate between 
them. These ordinarily turn on the idea that ddya is the 
more general and xpyoyuds the more specific word, and go 
back to the careful study of the Baron de Locella,”’ in his 
comment on a passage in(the later) Xenophon’s “ Ephesiaca.”’ 
Locella’s note does indeed practically cover the ground. He 
begins by noting the interchange of the two words in the 
text before him. Then he offers the definition that oraculorum 
responsa are generically \éy.a, whether in prose or verse, ad- 
ducing the doyia radara of Eurip., “‘ Heracl.,’’ 406, and the 
hoy.ov mvbdxpynorov of Plutarch, “ Thes.,’’ i. 55, as instances of 
\oyra undoubtedly couched in verse; while versified oracles, 

26 So still Franz Miller in his handy edition of this second book (Paderborn, 
1886). 

27 So Steup-Classen in the fourth edition of Classen’s ‘‘Second Book of Thucyd- 
ides,’ brought out by Steup (Berlin, 1889). They say: ‘‘é\éyovro : the unusual 
plural doubtless on account of the variety and diffusion of the Néya : cf. 5, 26, 2; 
6, 62, 4. Adyca, according to the usage of the anaphora, is to be understood with 
moAXa in both instances (B. supposes the anaphora would require the prepositing 
of the noun, as I. 3; but there vedrns is emphasized by xai, which is not the case 
here with \éya). ’EX€yovro : circulated by the mouth of the people, without 
fixed or metrical form, which would be given them or preserved for them by 
the xpyouoréyo. who were occupied professionally in the collection (hence — 
Aéyor) and interpretation of transmitted prophecies (cf. Herod. 7, 6, 142; 
Schémann, Gr. Alt., 23, 304). The distinction is between édéyorro and Féov, not the 
object of the A\éy.a.” 

28 Pp. 152, 153 of his edition of the piece (Vienna, 1796). It is reprinted entire 
in Peerlkamp’s edition (Haarlem, 1818) with this addition by the later editor: 
“oyia Latinis interdum dictiones, dicta, sermones, et logia; cf. Heins. ad Ovid., 
Her. v. 33 et Observ. Misc. V. I. T. IL. p. 276. Apollodorus in Biblioth. saepe 
permutat Asya et xpnouots, qui quum scribit I, vi. §1, rots dé cots AdyLov Hv 
mireris interpretem reddentem rumor erat inter deos. De discrimine \éy:a inter et 


xpenouols eadem jam ex Aristophane ejusque Schol. notarat Tresling. Adv. pag. 
46, 47, addens L. Bos ad Rom. ii. 2 et Alberti Obs. Phil. pag. 298 seq.” 


Cn ee ee a 


| 
‘ 
| 
: 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 345 


originally in hexameters and later in iambic trimeters are, 
specifically, xpyouot — whence xpnouwdéw is vaticinor, xpno- 
Mqmodia, vatrcinium, and xpnouwdos, vates. As thus the difference 
between the two words is that of genus and species, they 
may be used promiscuously for the same oracle. It is worth 
the trouble, he then remarks, to inspect how often Adytov and 
xXpnopuos are interchanged in the “Knights” of Aristophanes 
between verses 109 and 1224, from which the error of the 
scholiast on Thucydides, ii. 8, is clear and of Suidas following 
him, in making \oyuor specifically an oracle in prose, and xpyo- 
pos One in verse. He then quotes Eustathius on the “ Iliad,” 
ii. ver. 233, and on the “‘Odyssey,” i. ver. 1426; adduces the 
gloss, Aoy.ov, 6 xpyouds; and asks his readers to note what 
Stephens adduces from Camerarius against this distinction.” 
The continued designation by Greek writers of the prose 
Pythian oracles as xpnoyot is adverted to, Plutarch’s testi- 
mony being dwelt on: and relevant scholia on Aristophanes’ 
“Av’’., 960, and “ Nub.,” 144, are referred to. It is not strange 
that Locella’s finding, based on so exhaustive a survey of the 
relevant facts, should have dominated later commentators, 
who differ from it ordinarily more by way of slight modifi- 
cation than of any real revision — suggesting that hoya, 
being the more general word, is somewhat less sacred; or 
somewhat less precise; *! or somewhat less ancient.®? The 
common difficulty with all these efforts to distinguish the 
two words is that there is no usage to sustain them. When 
the two words occur together it is not in contrast but in 


29 Stephens (ed. Dindorf-Hase) merely adduces Camerarius’ testimony: ‘‘So 
Cam., adding that the discrimination of the grammarians is a false one, although 
the passage in Thucydides, i (sic.) [8] seems to agree with it.” 

30 This seems to be what Haack (on Thucyd., ii. 8) means when he defines 
Oya as Auguria, presagia vatum, and xpycpoi as oracula deorum. 

31 This seems the gist of Bredow’s view (on Thucyd., il. 8): “‘xenoues cum 
verbis xpav et xpetoOac oraculorum propriis cohaerens definite oraculum divinum 
vocatur; Adywov autem aperte generalius vocabulorum est, sermo ominosus, 
verbum faticidium quod non interrogatus vel deus, vel vates elocutus est.”” Poppo 
and Geeller ad loc. quote these views but add nothing of value to them. 

32 Bouché-Leclercq seems almost inclined to revert to Eustathius’ statement 
and look upon Adyov as “‘an expression peculiar to the Attic dialect, as tpddarra 
(Herod., v. 63; ix. 93) is an Ionic expression”’ (op. cit., 11. 130, note 4). 


346 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


apparently complete equivalence, and when \oyov appears 
apart from xpyopds it is in a sense which seems in no way to 
be distinguishable from it. The only qualification to which 
this statement seems liable, arises from a faintly-felt sus- 
picion that, in accordance with their etymological implica- 
tions already suggested, xpyoyuds has a tendency to appear 
when the mind of the speaker is more upon the source of 
the ‘‘oracle’? and \dyiov when his mind is more upon its 
substance. 

Even in such a rare passage as Eurip., “ Heracl.,’”’ 406, 
where the two words occur in quasi-contrast, we find no 
further ground for an intelligible distinction between them: 


“Yet all my preparations well are laid: 
Athens is all in arms, the victims ready 
Stand for the gods for whom they must be slain. 
By seers the city is filled with sacrifice 
For the foes’ rout and saving of the state. 
All prophecy-chanters have I caused to meet, 
Into old public oracles have searched, 
And secret, for salvation of this land.® 
And mid their manifest diversities, 
In one thing glares the sense of all the same — 
They bid me to Demeter’s daughter slay, 
A maiden of a high-born father sprung.”’ *4 


And ordinarily they display an interchangeability which 
seems almost studied, it is so complete and, as it were, 
iterant. Certainly, at all events, it is good advice to follow, to 
go to Aristophanes’ “Knights” to learn their usage. In that 
biting play Demos— the Athenian people —is pictured as 
‘“a Sibyllianizing old man”’ with whom Cleon curries favor 
by plying him with oracles, 


doer 0€ xpnopuols’ O dé yépwy oiBvdAdG.*® 


8 xpnouay 6’ aodods ravras eis & aXlcas | HrevyEa Kal BEBNra Kal Kexpvupuéeva | 
Oyta TWarad 7H SE YH owTHpra. 

34 Way’s translation, 398 seq. 

% Line 61. Blaydes says: “‘sensus est, senes enim oracula amat.” 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 347 


Nicias steals rovs xpyopots from Cleon, and brings ror tepov 
xpnopov to Demosthenes, who immediately on reading it ex- 
claims, & \oyra ! *° “De.: ’Q Adyra. Give me quick the cup! 
Nic.: Behold, what says the xpyoyués ? Dem.: Pour on! Nic.: 
Is it so stated in the doyios ? DemM.: O Bacis!’’ To cap the 
climax, the scholiast remarks on @ Noyia: ‘‘(uavreduara): he 
wonders when he reads tov xpyopuov.”’ Only a little later,’ 
Demosthenes is counseling the Sausage Vender not to “‘slight 
what the gods by rots \oyiosr have given’’ him and receives 
the answer: ‘‘ What then says 6 xpyoyés ?”’ and after the con- 
tents of it are explained the declaration, ‘‘I am flattered by 
7a Noyia.’? As the dénouement approaches, Cleon and the 
Sausage Vender plead that their oracles may at least be 
heard (lines 960-961: ot xpyopuot). They are brought, and this 
absurd scene is the result: ‘‘CiEoN: Behold, look here — 
and yet I’ve not got all. 8. V.: Ah, me! I burst — ‘and yet 
I’ve not got all!’ Dmem.: What are these ? CiEoN: Oracles 
(Aoyta). DeM.: All! CLEoN: Do you wonder ? By Jupiter, I’ve 
still a chestful left. S. V.: And I an upper with two dwelling 
rooms. DEM.: Come, let us see whose oracles (of xpyopot) are 
these? CxEoN: Mine are of Bacis. Dzmm.: Whose are thine? 
S. V.: Of Glamis, his elder brother.’’ And when they are read 
they are all alike in heroic measure. 

It is not in Aristophanes alone, however, that this equiva- 
lence meets us: the easy interchange of the two words 1s, we 
may say, constant throughout Greek literature. Thus, for ex- 
ample, in the “‘ Corinthiaca”’ of Pausanias (ii. 20, 10) an oracle 
is introduced as 76 Aoyov, and commented on as 6 xpnopos.*® 
In Diodorus Siculus, ii. 14,39 Semiramis is said to have gone 


36 Line 120. Wheelwright’s translation is used throughout. 37 Line 194. 
38 spdrepov dé Ere TOV AYaVA TOUTOY mpoecHnunver 7 IvOia, Kai 7d AdyLov Eire GAWS 
elre kal @s auveis €6NAwWGEY ‘ Hpddozos: 
"AXN Srav 7 Onr\eLa Tov appevra VikKHoACa 
éEeXaon Kal K0dos & *Apyeiorow a&pnrat 
mo\Aas ’Apyelwv audidpudeas Tore OnoeL. 
Ta pev és 7d Epyov Tay yuvakv éxovra Tod xpnouod radra Fv. In. v. 3, 1; Iv. 9, 4; 
ix. 37, 4 in like manner xpyopos is identified with wavrevya. 
39 Bekker, i. 150. 


348 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


to Ammon xpnoouevn TS O€@ Tepi THs idtas TeXeuTHS, and, the 
narrative continues, \éyerat ab’TtH yevéobar Aoyrov. Similarly in 
Plutarch’s “De Defectu Orac.,”’ v.“ we have the three terms 
TO xpnoTnpiov, TO hoy.ov and Ta mavTeta TadTa equated: in “ De 
Mul. Virt.,”’ vii.*t the A\oyua are explained by what was éypno- 
6y: in ““Questiones Romane,” xxi.” \oyra came by way of a 
xpnouwoetv. In the “Ephesiaca” of thelater Xenophon metrical 
pavrebwara are received, the recipients of which are in doubt 
what 7a Tov Oeot Novia can mean, until, on consideration, they 
discover a likely interpretation for the xpyouov that seems 
to meet the wish of the God who éuavretoaro.* 

How little anything can be derived from the separate use 
of A\oytov to throw doubt on its equivalence with xpyopos as 
thus exhibited, may be observed from the following instances 
of its usage, gathered together somewhat at random: * 


Herodotus, i. 64: ‘‘He purified the island of Delos, according to 
the injunctions of an oracle (é t&v Noyiwv)’’; 1. 120: “We have found 
even oracles sometimes fulfilled in unimportant ways (7r&v doyiwr 
évia)’’; iv. 178: ‘Here in this lake is an island called Phla, which it is 
said the Lacedzemonians were to have colonized according to an oracle 
(civ vicov Aaxedatmoviorst dace NOyLov etvat KTiaar)’’; vill. 60: ‘‘ Where an 
oracle has said that we are to overcome our enemies (kal \oyov Eore 
Tav éxOpav xarirepbe)’’; vill. 62: “‘which the prophecies declare we are 
to colonize (ra Noyra Aeyer).”’ Aristophanes,‘ Vesp.,’’ 799: dpa ro xphua, 
Ta NOY’ ws wepatverat; ‘Knights,’ 1050, ravri redetoPar Ta AOL’ HON wor 
doxet. Polybius, vii. 30, 6: ‘‘ For the eastern quarter of Tarentum is 
full of monuments, because those who die there are to this day all 
buried within the walls, in obedience to an ancient oracle (kara Te 
Noytov apxatov).’’ Diodorus Siculus ap. Geog. Sync., p. 194 D(‘‘ Corpus 
Scriptorum Historie Byzantine,” 1. 366), ‘‘ Fabius says an oracle came 
to Atneas (Alveia yeveoOar Ady.ov), that a quadruped should direct him 

4091, 412 D: 


41 11. 247 D. droretpmpevor TOV Noyiwv. ’Expnabn yap abtrots:... 
#2 11. 268 E. amopbeyyeobat Noyra, Kai xpnoumdety rots EpowrGow:... 

431. 6. 

44 The word, as will be seen, is as old as Herodotus: on the other hand — if 
we may trust the indices — it does not seem to occur in Homer (Dunbar’s ‘‘Con- 
cordance” [to Odyssey ], Gehring’s ‘‘Index’’), Hesiod (Paulsen’s ‘‘Index’’), Plato 


(Ast’s ‘‘Lexicon”’) or Aristotle, Xenophon or Sophocles. 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 349 


to the founding of a city.” Alian, “Var. Hist.,” ii.41: “Moreover My- 
cerinus the Egyptian, when there was brought to him the prophecy 
from Budo (76 é Botrns wavretov), predicting ashort life, and he wished to 
escape the oracle (76 \dyiov) .. .”? Arrian, “ Expedit. Alex.,” ii. 3, 14 
(Ellendt., 1. 151): &s 70d Noyiouv rod émi rH Abce TOD Secuod EvuBEBnKdTOs; 
vii. 16, 7 (Ellendt., ii. 419), ““But when Alexander had crossed the 
river Tigris with his army, pushing on to Babylon, the wise men of 
the Chaldeans (Xaddaiwy of Adyor) met him and separating him from 
his companions asked him to check the march to Babylon. For they 
had an oracle from their God Belus (Aéy.ov éx Tod Geod Tod Bydov) that 
entrance into Babylon at that time would not be for his good. But he 
answered them with a verse (éros) of the poet Euripides, which runs 
thus: ‘The best uavris is he whose conclusion is good.’”’ Plutarch, 
“Non posse suaviter vivi,” etc., 24 (1103 F.): “ What of that ? (quoth 
Zeuxippus). Shall the present discourse be left imperfect and unfin- 
ished because of it ? and feare we to alledge the oracle of the gods (76 
hoyov mpdos ’Eixovpov deyovres) when we dispute against the Epicu- 
reans ? No (quoth I againe) in any wise, for according to the sentence 
of Empedocles, ‘A good tale twice a man may tell, and heare it told as 
oft full well’;” “Life of Theseus,” § 26 (p. 12 C, Didot, p. 14), “He 
applied to himself a certain oracle of Apollo’s (Ady.6v re rvddxpnorov)”’ 
§ 27 (p. 12 E, Didot, p. 14): “ At length Theseus, having sacrificed to 
Fear, according to the oracle (card rv Ady.ov)’’; ““ Life of Fabius,”’ § 4 
(Didot, p. 210), ’Exuw7Onoav 6€ tore rodXal Kal TSv aroppyATwy Kal xpnol- 
wv avtots BiBAwy, ds DuBvddelous Kadodaou’ Kal NEyeTat gvVdpapeEty Evia TOV 
aTOKELMevWY ev alTats Noyiwy mpos Tas TUXAS Kal Tas Tpdtes Exeivas. Pau- 
sanias, “ Attica’’ [I. 44, 9] (taken unverified from Wetstein): 6icavtos 
Aiaxod Kata 64 Te NOyov 7H TlavedAnviw Act. Polyzenus, p. 37 (Wetstein) 
[I, 18]: 6 beds éxpnoe — of rodeuor TO NOYLOV €iddTES — TOU Aoyiov TeE- 
mAnpwuevov; p. 347 (IV, 3, 27], jv dé Adycov ’AdANwvos. Aristeas, p. 119 
(Wetstein): ebxapioT& per, avipes, butv, TH 6€ drooTElAavTe MaNAOV" eEYLO-~ 
Tov O€ TH Dew, ovTLVOS EgTL TA NOYLA TAUTA. 


A survey of this somewhat miscellaneous collection of 
passages will certainly only strengthen the impression we de- 
rived from those in which \édy.ov and xpnopyos occur together 
— that in \oy.ov we have a term expressive, in common usage 
at least, of the simple notion of a divine revelation, an oracle, 
and that independently of any accompanying implication of 
length or brevity, poetical or prose form, directness or in- 


350 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


directness of delivery. This is the meaning of \dyrov in the 
mass of profane Greek literature. As we have already sug- 
gested, the matter of the derivation of the word is of no 
great importance to our inquiry: “ but we may be permitted 
to add that the usage seems distinctly favorable to the view 
that it is to be regarded rather as, in origin, the neuter of 
Aoytos used substantively, than the diminutive of Aoyos. No 
implication of brevity seems to attach to the word in usage; 
and its exclusive application to ‘‘oracles’’ may perhaps be 
most easily explained on the supposition that it connotes 
fundamentally ‘‘a wise saying,’ and implies at all times 
something above the ordinary run of ‘‘ words.’’ * 

II. It was with this fixed significance, therefore, that the 
word presented itself to the Jews of the later centuries be- 
fore Christ, when the changed conditions were forcing them 
to give a clothing in Greek speech to their conceptions, de- 
rived from the revelation of the old covenant; and thus to 
prepare the way for the language of the new covenant. The 
oldest monument of Hellenistic Greek — the Septuagint Ver- 
sion of the Sacred Books, made probably in the century that 
stretched between 250 and 150 B.C. — is, however, pecul- 
larly ill-adapted to witness to the Hellenistic usage of this 
word. As lay in the nature of the case, and, as we shall see 
later, was the actual fact, to these Jewish writers there were 
no ‘‘oracles”’ except what stood written in these sacred books 
themselves, and all that stood written in them were “‘ oracles 
of God.” In a translation of the books themselves, naturally 
this, the most significant Hellenistic application of the word 


45 See above, p. 336. 

46 Dr. Addison Alexander, with his usual clearness, posits the alternative 
admirably (on Acts vii. 38): ‘‘The Greek word (Aéya) has been variously ex- 
plained as a diminutive of (Adyos) word, meaning a brief, condensed and frequent 
utterance; or as the neuter of an adjective (Ady.os) meaning rational, profound, wise, 
and as a substantive, a wise saying.” It would seem difficult to rise from a survey 
of the classical usage without an impression that it justifies the latter derivation. 
This usage is stated with perfect accuracy by DeMoor (‘‘Com. in Marckii Com- 
pend.,” i. 13): 76 Adyeov ‘when used substantively may be considered as more 
emphatic than 76 pjua or even 6 ddyos: for this term means with the Greeks not 
any kind of word, but specifically an oracle, a divine response.” 


“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” ool 


‘“‘oracles,’”’ could find little place. And though the term might 
be employed within the sacred books to translate such a 
phrase as, say, ‘‘the word of God,” in one form or another 
not infrequently met with in their pages, the way even here 
was clogged by the fact that the Hebrew words used in these 
phrases only imperfectly corresponded to the Greek word 
doyvov, and were not very naturally represented by it. Though 
the ordinary Hebrew verb for ‘‘saying’’? — -»x “7 — to which 
etymologically certain high implications might be thought to 
be natural, had substantival derivatives, yet these were fairly 
effectually set aside by a term of lower origin — “354 — 
which absorbed very much the whole field of the conception 
“word.” The derivatives of ~2x—"Rk, Ts, TTX, TEX! — in ac- 
cordance with their etymological impress of loftiness or 
authority, are relegated to poetic speech (except “»x2, which 


Ts 


occurs only in Esther i. 15, ii. 20, ix. 32, and has the sense 
of commandment) and are used comparatively seldom. 
Nevertheless, it was to one of these that the Septuagint 
translators fitted the word déy.ov. To 753 they naturally 
consecrated the general terms )dyos, pnua, tpayua: while 


47 It occurs, according to the Brown-Gesenius ‘‘Lexicon,”’ no less than 5287 
times; according to Girdlestone (“Synonyms of the O. T.,” ed. 2, p. 205), it ‘“‘is 
generally rendered in the LXX. érw and Neyw.”’ There seems to be inherent in the 
word an undertone of loftiness or authoritativeness due possibly to its etymo- 
logical implication of “prominence.” Its derivations are accordingly mostly 
poetical words designating a lofty speech or authoritative speech. 

48 The verb, of doubtful origin, occurs according to Brown-Gesenius, 1142 
times, and is generally rendered in the LXX. (Girdlestone, loc. cit.) X\adéw. The 
noun occurs 1439 times and is rendered “‘generally \dyos, sometimes pfua, and in 
35 passages, mpadyua.” 

49 There is also the poetic word bon and its derivative noun mr —a word 
‘used in 30 passages, 19 of which are in Job and 7 in Daniel,” and rendered in the 
LXX. ddoyos and pjua (Girdlestone). 

50 “Wak, “except in Josh. xxiv. 27 (E) used exclusively in poetry, 48 times, of 
which 22 are in Proverbs and 11 in Job” (Driver on Deut. xxxii. 1). T728 “only 
found in poetry (86 times, of which 19 are in Ps. exix.)”’ (Driver on Deut. xxxii. 2). 
M28, Lam. ii. 17 only. Y28/3, Esth. i. 15, ii. 20, ix. 32 only. On the general subject 
of their poetic usage see Green, ‘“‘General Introduction to the O. T.: The Text,” 
p. 19; Bleek, ‘‘Introduction to the O. T.,”’ E. T., i. 98; Havernick, ‘‘ Einleitung,” 
i. 172; Gesenius, ‘‘Geschichte der hebraischen Sprache,” p. 22, and “‘Lehrge- 
biude,” Register, p. 892; Vogel, ‘‘De Dialecto Poetica.”’ 


302 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


they adjusted \dy.ov as well as might be to 7x, and left 
to one side meanwhile its classical synonyms *! — except 
ywavreta and its cognates, which they assigned, chiefly, of 
course, in a bad sense, to the Hebrew cop in the sense of 
‘“‘divination.”’ 

mmx is, to be sure, in no sense an exact synonym of 
hoy.ov. It is simply a poetical word of high implications, pre- 
vailingly, though not exclusively, used of the ‘‘utterances”’ 
of God, and apparently felt by the Septuagint translators to 
bear in its bosom a special hint of the authoritativeness or 
awesomeness of the ‘‘word”’ it designates. It is used only 
some thirty-six times in the entire Old Testament (of which 
no less than nineteen are in Ps. exix.), and designates the 
solemn words of men (Gen. iv. 23, ef. Isa. xxix. 4 bis., xxvill. 
23, xxxll. 9; Ps. xvil. 6; Deut. xxxil. 2) as well as, more pre- 
vailingly, those of God. In adjusting \éyor to it the instances 
of its application to human words are, of course, passed by 
and translated either by Noyos (Gen. iv. 23; Isa. xxix. 4 bis.; 
Isa. xxvill. 23, xxxii. 9), or pjua (Deut. xxxil. 2; Ps. xvii. 6). 
In a few other instances, although the term is applied to 
‘‘words of God,” it is translated by Greek words other than 
hoyov (II Sam. xxii. 31, LX X. pjua, and its close parallel, 
Prov. xxx. 5, LXX. doyo., though in the other parallels, 
Ps. xii. 7, xviii. 31, the LX X. has Aédya; Ps. exix. [41 2, 154, 
where the LX_X. has Noyos; in Ps. exxxvill. 2, the LX X. reads 
TO ay.ov cov, on which Bethgen remarks, 2m loc., that ‘‘ ayvov 
seems to be a corruption for \éyov,”’ which is read here by 
Aquila and the Quinta). In the remaining instances of its 
occurrences, however — and that is in the large majority of 
its occurrences — the word is uniformly rendered by \oyov 


51 ypnouds, for example, which we have found the constant accompaniment of 
Aéyov in the classics and shall find always by its side in Philo, does not occur in 
the LXX. at all. The cognates xpnuarifw (Jer. xxxil. (25) 30, xxxill. (26) 2, xxxvi. 
(29) 28, xxxvil. (30) 2, xonuwariopés (Prov. xxiv. 69 (xxxi. 1), II Mace. il. 4), xonua- 
tiornpt (I Kegs. viii. 6), are, however, found, and in their high sense. It is somewhat. 
overstrained for Delitzsch (on Heb. viii. 5, E. T., Vol. ii. 82) to say: ‘‘ The Septu- 
agint word for the deliverance of a divine oracle or injunction is xpynuarifer 
(rovs Néyous) ruvl or rpds Twa: xpnuarifew is found in this sense only in the LXX. 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 303 


(Deut. xxxili. 9; Ps. xii. 7 bis., xviii. 31, ev. 19, exix. 11, 38 
41h), °7750,/58; 67, 76, 82) 103) 116, 128; 133) 140,7148..158, 
162, 170, 172, exlvii. 15; Isa. v. 24). If there is a fringe of 
usage of sms thus standing outside of the use made of 
Aoy.ov, there is, on the other side, a corresponding stretch- 
ing of the use made of \éyov beyond the range of a7» — to 
cover a few passages judged by the translators of similar im- 
port. Thus it translates -4k in Num. xxiv. 4, 16; Ps. xviii. 
15 [xix. 15], evi. [evii.] 11, and ss in Ps. exviii. [exix.] 25, 
65, 107, 169, [exlvii. 8]; Isa. xxviii. 13; and it represents 
in a few passages \dyorv, a variation from the Hebrew, 
viz., Ps. exviii. [ cxix.]; Isa. xxx. 11, 27 bis. In twenty-five 
instances of its thirty-nine occurrences, however, it is the 
rendering of m7x.°? It is also used twice in the Greek apoc- 
rypha (Wis. xvi. 11; Sir. xxxvi. 19 [16]), in quite the same 
sense. In all the forty-one instances of its usage, it is needless 
to say, it is employed in its native and only current sense, of 
‘oracle,’ a sacred utterance of the Divine Being, the only 
apparent exception to this uniformity of usage (Ps. xvii. 15 
[ xix. 15 ]) being really no exception, but, in truth, significant 
of the attitude of the translators to the text they were trans- 
lating — as we shall see presently. 

What led the LXX. translators to fix upon mx as the 
nearest Hebrew equivalent to \oyov,* we have scanty ma- 
terial for judging. Certainly, in Psalm cxix, where the word 
most frequently occurs, it is difficult to erect a distinction 
between its implications and those of 735 with which it 
seems to be freely interchanged, but which the LXX. trans- 


Jeremiah, A very rich body of illustrations for the New Testament usages (Luke 
ii. 26, Acts x. 22, Heb. viii. 5) might, however, be culled from Philo. 

52 Tn some codd. but in the edd. we read, xara 76 €\eds gov. 

53 The passages are already enumerated just above. 

54 The other versions add nothing of importance. At Ps. exix. 41 the ‘TVs 
rendered édeos by LX X.is rendered \éyrov by Aq. and Th. In Ps. exxxvil. (¢xxxviii). 
2 the 778 rendered by LXX. a&yov (though Bethgen remarks that this seems 
merely a corruption of Aéy.ov) is rendered Adyov by Aq. and Quinta. In Isa. xxxil. 9, 
the ‘T728 rendered in LXX. by dAéyou is given as Adyiov by Aq., a case quite parallel 
with Ps. xviii. 15 (xix. 15) in LXX. In Jer. viii. 9 the phrase 717""7572 is ren- 
dered in Aq. by Adyrov. 


304 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


lators keep reasonably distinct from it by rendering it pre- 
vailingly by ddoyos,* while equally prevailingly reserving 
Noytov for w7ex.°® Perhaps the reader may faintly feel even 
in this Psalm, that =» was to the writer the more sacred 
and solemn word, and was used, in his rhetorical variation of 
his terms, especially whenever the sense of the awesomeness 
of God’s words or the unity of the whole revelation of God ” 
more prominently occupied his mind; and this impression is 
slightly increased, perhaps, in the case of the interchange of 
Noytov and dyos in the Greek translation. When we look be- 
yond this Psalm we certainly feel that something more re- 
quires to be said of ss than merely that it is poetic.® It is 


| 
T 


very seldom applied to human words and then only to the 
most solemn forms of human speech — Gen. xxiv. 23 (LXX., 
Noyor); Deut. xxxii. 2 (LXX., pnua); Ps. xxvii. (LXX., pjua); 
ef. Isa. xxix. 4 bis (LXX., Novyor) where the speaker is Jeru- 
salem whose speech is compared to the murmuring of familiar 
spirits or of the dead, and Isa. xxviil. 23, xxxil. 9, where the 
prophet’s word is in question. It appears to suggest itself 
naturally when God’s word is to receive its highest praises 


5 The statistics of this Psalm are: ‘TY28 is used 19 times: being translated by 
oyov 17 times, viz., at verses 11, 38, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 115, 123, 133, 140, 
148, 158, 162, 170, 172; at v. 41 it is translated 76 €\eos, though some codices read 
Tov Aoyov and some 76 Adytov; at v. 154 it is translated by Adyov. 137 is used 23 times: 
being translated by Adyos 15 times, viz., at verses 9, 16, 17, 28, 42, 48, 49, 74, 81, 


89, 101, 130, 147, 160, 161; by Aéyiov 4 times, viz., at verses 25, 65, 107, 109; by. 


évro\n twice, viz., at verses 57, 1389; by véuos at v.105, and by dads at v. 114 (though 
some cod. read Adyor or Adyos). Adyeov is used 23 times: being the translation of ‘TVa8 
17 times, viz., at. verses 11, 38, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 115, 123, 133, 140, 148, 158, 
162, 170, 172; of "27 4 times (25, 65, 107, 169); of 77 once (124) and of DAWN 
once (149). Adyos is used 17 times: being the translation of "37 15 times, viz., 
at verses 9, 16, 17, 28, 42, 43, 49, 74, 81, 89, 101, 180, 147, 160, 161 and of ‘a8 
once (154, cf. 41), while once (42a) it is inserted without warrant from the Hebrew. 

56 Delitzsch on v. 9 seg.: ‘The old classic (e. g., xvili. 31), JTS alternates 
throughout with 7727; both are intended collectively.’’ Perowne on v. 11: ‘‘Worp, 
or rather ‘saying,’ ‘speech,’ distinct from the word employed, for instance, in v. 9. 
Both words are constantly interchanged throughout the Psalm.” 

57 Delitzsch on v. 145-152: “i188 is here as in verses 140, 158, the whole 
Word of God, whether in its requirements or its promises.” 

°8 Driver on Deut. xxxii. 2: “Only found in poetry (36 times, of which 19 are 
in Ps. 119); cf. Isa. xxviii. 23, xxxii. 9.” 

*? On this passage cf. Konig, ‘‘ Offenbarungsbegriff,’’ ii. 149, 150. 


ee eee ”/ 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD” O00 


fates LPS xin gexvills 3 lst Provex sxe we seCKe x Vill: 
2), or when the word of Jehovah is conceived as power or 
adduced in a peculiarly solemn way (Ps. exlvii. 18 ®; Isa. v. 
24). Perhaps the most significant passage is that in Psalm ev. 
19, where the writer would appear to contrast man’s word 
with God’s word, using for the former 133 (LX X., \ovyos) and 
for the latter ~7»x (LXX., \oyov): Joseph was tried by the 
word of the Lord until his own words came to pass.* What- 
ever implications of superior solemnity attached to the 
Hebrew word 77x, however, were not only preserved, but 
emphasized by the employment of the Greek term dy.ov to 
translate it — a term which was inapplicable, in the nature 
of the case, to human words, and designated whatever it was 
applied to as the utterance of God. We may see its lofty 
implications in the application given to it outside the usage 
of =t»xs —in Num. xxiv. 4, for example, where the very 
solemn description of Balaam’s deliverances — ‘‘oracle of 
the hearer of the words of God” (5x~>x) — is rendered most 
naturally dyoiv dxobwv Noyra iaxupov. Here, one would say, we 
have the very essence of the word, as developed in its classi- 
cal usage, applied to Biblical conceptions: and it is essen- 
tially this conception of the ‘‘unspeakable oracles of God”’ 
(Sir., xxxvi. 19, [16 ]) that is conveyed by the word in every 
instance of its occurrence. 

An exception has been sometimes found, to be sure, in 
Ps. xviii. 15 (xix. 14), inasmuch as in this passage we have 
the words of the Psalmist designated as 7a Noyia: “‘ And the 
words (7a Noya) of my mouth and the meditation of my 
heart shall be continually before thee for approval, O Lord, 
my help and my redeemer.” In this passage, however — and 


60 ‘The God of Israel is the Almighty Governor of nature. It is He who sends 
His fiat (178 after the manner of the V8"! of the history of creation, cf. xxxiii. 9), 
earthward. ... The word is His messenger (cf. in cvii. 20), etc.’ Delitzsch, in loc. 

6t It seems certainly inadequate to render ‘Ta8 by ‘‘saying,” as is very fre- 
quently done, e. g., by Dr. John DeWitt in his “‘ Praise Songs of Israel” (we have 
only the first edition at hand), by Dr. Maclaren in the cxix. Psalm (“Expositor’s 
Bible’’) and by Dr. Driver at Ps. cv. 19; cf. exlvii. 15 seg. This English word sug- 
gests nothing of the lofty implications which seem to have attached to the Hebrew 
term. 


356 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


in Isa. xxxil. 9 as rendered by Aquila, which is similar — we 
would seem to have not so much an exception to the usage 
of 7a Adyta as otherwise known, as an extension of it. The 
translators have by no means used it here of the words of a 
human speaker, but of words deemed by them to be the 
words of God, and called 7a \éyta just because considered 
the ‘‘tried words of God.’ This has always been perceived 
by the more careful expositors. Thus Philippi © writes: 


“Psalm xix. 14 supplies only an apparent exception, since ra 
oyta TOD crduaros wou there, as spoken through the Holy Spirit, may 
be regarded as at the same time, Adyra Beod.” 


And Morrison: ® 


“In Psalm xix. 15 (14) the term thus occurs: ‘let the words of my 
mouth (7a Adyla ToD cTOmaTos wou = “B78, from Wk), and the medi- 
tation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength 
and my Redeemer.’ But even here the term may be fitly regarded as 
having its otherwise invariable reference. The Septuagint translator 
looked upon the sacred writer as giving utterance in his Psalm — the 
words of his mouth — to diviner thoughts than his own, to the thoughts 
of God Himself. He regarded him as ‘moved’ in what he said, ‘by 
the Holy Ghost.’’’ * 


In a word, we have here an early instance of what proves to 
be the standing application of ta \oyra on Hellenistic lips — 
its application to the Scripture word as such, as the special 
word of God that had come to them. The only ground of 
surprise that can emerge with reference to its use here, there- 
fore, is that in this instance it occurs within the limits of the 
Seriptures themselves: and this is only significant of the 
customary employment of the term in this application — 
for, we may well argue, it was only in sequence to such a 
customary employment of it that this usage could intrude 
itself thus, unobserved as it were, into the Biblical text itself. 

62 On Rom. iii. 2. 

6& On Rom. iii. 2 (pp. 14, 15). 


6 Possibly Bleek in loc. Heb. v. 12 means the same thing when he says the 
word stands here of ‘‘the inspired religious song of the poet.” 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 357 


It is scarcely necessary to do more than incidentally ad- 
vert to the occasional occurrence of \oytov = doyetov in the 
Septuagint narrative, as the rendering of the Hebrew jun, that 
is, to designate the breastplate of the high priest, which he 
wore when he consulted Jehovah.® Bleek writes, to be sure, 
as follows: © 


“How fully the notion of an utterance of God attended the word 
according to the usage of the Alexandrians too is shown by the cir- 
cumstance that the LX X. employed it for the oracular breastplate of 
the High Priest (jn), Ex. xxviii. 15, 22 seg., xxix. 5, xxxix. 8 seq.; 
Lev. vii. 8; Sir. xlv. 12, for which doyetov, although found in Codd. 
Vat. and Alex., is apparently a later reading; Néyov, to which the 
Latin translation rationale goes back, has also Josephus, ‘‘ Ant.,’’ 11. 
7, 5, for it: éoonvns (WM) wer Kadetrat, onuaiver 6€ TodTO KaTa THY ‘EAANVOY 
yA@rrav Noytov; c. 8, 9: Bev “EXAnVEs .. . TOV EcaoHvynY NOYLoV Kadovau; 
viii. 3, 8. And similarly apparently Philo, as may be inferred from his 
expositions, in that he brings it into connection with \dyos, reason, 
although with him too the reading varies between the two forms: see 
“Legg. Allegor.,’’ ii. 40, p. 83, A. B.; § 43, p. 84, C. ‘Vit. Mos.,” 
iow OF 0.4871 2)-p.. 672,517,813). p67) A. » De Monarch: ,% 
ll. 5, p. 824 A.” 


It is much more probable, however, that we have here an 
itacistic confusion by the copyists, than an application by 
the Septuagint translators of \éy.ov to a new meaning. This 
confusion may have had its influence on the readers of the 
LXX., and may have affected in some degree their usage of 
the word: but it can have no significance for the study of the 
use of the word by the LXX. itself. 


III. Among the readers of the Septuagint it is naturally 
to Philo that we will turn with the highest expectations of 
light on the Hellenistic usage of the word: and we have al- 
ready seen Bleek pointing out the influence upon him of the 

6 Hx. xxviii. 15, 22, 23, 24, 24, 26, xxix. 5, 5 A. R., xxxv. 27, xxxvi. 15, 16, 22, 
24, 25, 27, 29, 29; Lev. viii. 8, 8; Sir. xlv. 10. Also in Aq.: Ex. xxv. 6 (7), xxvill. 4, 
xxxv. 9. In Sm.: Ex. xxviii. 4, 28. In Th.: Ex. xxv. 6 (7), xxviii. 4, 23, 23, xxvii. 


24, 26, 28, xxxv. 9. 
66 Hebrews, pp. 115, 116, note. 


358 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


LXX. use of \oy.ov = Aoyetov. Whatever minor influence of 
this kind the usage of the Septuagint may have had on him, 
however, Philo’s own general employment of the word carries 
on distinctly that of the profane authors. In him, too, the 
two words xpnopos and \oywov appear as exact synonyms, 
interchanging repeatedly with each other, to express what 
is in the highest sense the word of God, an oracle from 
heaven. The only real distinction between his usage of these 
words and that of profane authors arises from the fact that 
to Philo nothing is an oracle from heaven, a direct word of 
God, except what he found within the sacred books of 
Israel.*’ And the only confusing element in his usage springs 


67 Tt is not intended to deny that Philo recognized a certain divine influence 
working beyond the limits of Scripture: but he does this without prejudice to his 
supreme regard for the Scriptures as the only proper oracles of God. At the open- 
ing of the tractate ‘‘Quod Omn. Prob. Lib.” (§ 1, M. 444, 445), he gives expression 
in the most exalted terms to his appreciation of the value of Greek thought: the 
Pythagoreans are a most sacred brotherhood (iepwraros diacos) whose teachings are 
kada, and all men who have genuinely embraced philosophy (¢iAocodiavy yrunciws 
nomwacavro) have found one of their Aéyou a Oecpuov icobuevov xpnoud. Elsewhere he 
speaks of Parmenides, Empedocles, Zeno and Cleanthes and their like as “‘divi 
homines” constituting a “‘sacer coetus” (“‘ De Prov.,’’ §48), who did not cast their 
teachings in verse only because it was fitting that they should not be quite gods 
(“De Prov.,”’ § 42). But even here the xpnouds is the standard to which their teach- 
ing is only likened: with all their wisdom they fall short of deity; and it is the 
utterance of deity alone which is ‘‘oracular’”’ — and this utterance is discernible 
only in the Scriptures of the Jews. We venture to quote here the statements of 
Prof, James Drummond (“Philo Judzus,”’ i. pp. 13 seq.): The Scriptures “‘ were the 
‘oracles,’ the ‘sacred’ or ‘divine word,’ whose inspiration extended to the most 
minute particulars. Philo distinguishes indeed different kinds of inspiration, but 
the distinction did not affect its divine authority. . .. Communion between God 
and man is among the permanent possibilities of our race; and Philo goes so far 
as to say that every good and wise man has the gift of prophecy, while it is impos- 
sible for the wicked man to become an interpreter of God (‘‘Quis rer. div. heres.” 
52 [1. 510]). It is true that he is referring here primarily to the good men in the 
Scriptures, but he seems to regard them as representatives of a general law. He 
did not look upon himself as a stranger to this blessed influence, but sometimes 
‘a more solemn word’ spoke from his own soul, and he ventured to write down 
what it said to him (‘‘Cherubim,” 9 [i. 143 ]). In one passage he fully records his 
experience (“‘Migrat. Abrah.,” 7 [i. 441]).... Elsewhere he refers to the sug- 
gestions of the Spirit which was accustomed to commune with him unseen (‘‘ De 
Somniis,” ii. 38 [i. 692]). . .. But he ascribed to the Biblical writers a fullness of 
this divine enthusiasm, and consequent infallibility of utterance, which he claimed 
for no others.” 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” O09 


from the fact that the whole contents of the Jewish sacred 
books are to him ‘‘oracles,’”’ the word of God; so that he has 
no nomenclature by which the oracles recorded in the Scrip- 
tures may be distinguished from the oracles which the 
Scriptures as such are. He has no higher words than Ndoyov 
and xpyopuos by which to designate the words of God which 
are recorded in the course of the Biblical narrative: he can 
use no lower words than these to designate the several pas- 
sages of Scripture he adduces, each one of which is to him a 
direct word of God. Both of these uses of the words may be 
illustrated from his writings almost without limit. A few in- 
stances will suffice. 

In the following, the ‘‘oracle’’ is a ‘‘word of God”’ re- 
corded in the Scriptures °°: 


‘ 


‘For he inquires whether the man is still coming hither, and the 
sacred oracle answers (daoxpiverat 76 \oyuov), ‘He is hidden among the 
stuff’ (I Sam. x. 22)” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,” § 36, pp. 418 E). “‘ For 
after the wise man heard the oracle which being divinely given said 
(Oeartabevtos Noyiou TovovTov) ‘Thy reward is exceeding great’ (Gen. xv. 
1), he inquired, saying. . . . And yet who would not have been amazed 
at the dignity and greatness of him who delivered this oracle (rod 
xpnou@ dovvros) 2?” (‘Quis rer. div. her.,” §1, pp. 481 D). “And he 
(God) mentions the ministrations and services by which Abraham dis- 
played his love to his master in the last sentence of the divine oracle 
given to his son (dxporedebriov Aoyiov Tod xpynaGevros adtod 7 viet) (““ Quis 
rer. div. her.,”’ § 2, pp. 482 E). “To him (Abraham), then, being con- 
scious of such a disposition, an oracular command suddenly comes 
(eomiferat Adyov), Which was never expected (Gen. xxi. 1)... and 
without mentioning the oracular command (76 \oyov) to anyone .. .” 
(“De Abrah.,” § 32, P., p. 373 E). “[Moses] had appointed his 
brother high-priest in accordance with the will of God that had been 
declared unto him (xara 74 xpnoO@v7a NOyta”’) (“De Vita Moysis,’’ ili. 


68 Yonge’s translation (in Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library) is made use of in 
these citations. The paging of Mangey is often given and sometimes that of the 
Paris edition: but the edition of Richter is the one that has been actually used. 
The shortcomings of Yonge’s translation (cf. Edersheim’s article, “‘ Philo,” in 
Smith and Wace’s ‘“‘ Dictionary of Christian Biography,” iv. 367 A, note o), will 
be evident to the reader; but when important for our purpose will be correctable 
from the Greek clauses inserted. 


360 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


21, P., p. 569 D). “Moses... being perplexed . . . besought God to 
decide the question and to announce his decision to him by an oracular 
command (xpyoue). And God listened to his entreaty and gave him 
an oracle (Adytov beorife). .. . We must proceed to relate the oracular 
commands (Aéy.a xpnobévra). He says... (Num. ix. 10)” (“De Vita 
Moysis,” iii. 30, P., p. 687 D). “And Balaam replied, All that I have 
hitherto uttered have been oracles and words of God (Adya xal 
xpnopyot), but what I am going to say are merely the suggestions of my 
own mind. ... Why do you give counsel suggesting things contrary 
to the oracles of God (rots xpyouots) unless indeed that your counsels 
are more powerful than his decrees (Aoyiwv) ?”’ (“De Vita Moysis,”’ i. 
53, P., p. 647 D). “ Was it not on this account that when Cain fancied 
he had offered up a blameless sacrifice an oracle (Adyrov) came to him ? 
... And the oracle is as follows (76 6€ Adyov Eore ToLdvde) (Gen. iv. 7)” 
(“De Agricult.,”’ § 29, M. i. 319). “And a proof of this may be found 
in the oracular answer given by God (76 fecmicbev \oytov) to the person 
who asked what name he had: ‘I am that I am’” (“De Somniis,” i. 
§ 40, M. 1, 655). ‘““But when he became improved and was about to 
have his name changed, he then became a man born of God (4pwros 
Geod) according to the oracle that was delivered to him (kara ro xpnobev 
ait@ Aoy.ov), ‘I am thy God’” (‘‘ De Gigant.,”’ § 14, M. 1, 271). “ For 
which reason, a sacred injunction to the following purport (6.6 kai 
hoyov Expnoby 7B cod to.ovde) ‘Go thou up to the Lord, thou and 
Aaron,’ etc. (Gen. xxiv. 1.). And the meaning of this injunction is as 
follows: ‘Go thou up, O soul’” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,” § 31, M. 1, 
462). ‘For which account an oracle of the all-merciful God has been 
given (Ady.ov Tod thew Oeod weordov Hueporyros) full of gentleness, which 
shadows forth good hopes to those who love instruction in these times, 
‘I will never leave thee nor forsake thee’ (Jos. i. 5)” (“De Confus. 
Ling.,” § 32, M. i. 430). “Do you not recollect the case of the sooth- 
sayer Balaam ? He is represented as hearing the oracles of God (Ady 
Jeov) and as having received knowledge from the Most High, but what 
advantage did he reap from such hearing, and what good accrued to 
him from such knowledge?” (““De Mutat. Nominum,” §37). “There 
are then a countless number of things well worthy of being displayed 
and demonstrated; and among them one which was mentioned a little 
while ago; for the oracle (76 Ady.ov) calls the person who was really his 
grandfather, the father of the practiser of virtue, and to him who was 
really his father it has not given any such title; for it says, ‘I am the 
Lord God of Abraham, thy Father’ (Gen. xxviii. 13), and in reality 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD” O61 


he was his grandfather, and, again, ‘the God of Isaac,’ not adding this 
time, ‘thy Father’ (“De Somniis,’ i. § 27).” “And there is something 
closely resembling this in the passage of Scripture (lt. the oracle: 
Td xpnobév Aoyrov) concerning the High Priest (Lev. xvi. 17)” (“De 
Somniis,”’ il. § 34). 


On the other hand, in the following instances, the refer- 
ence is distinctly to Scripture as such: 


“ And the following oracle given with respect to Enoch (76 xpnadev 
él "Evwx dOytov) proves this: ‘Enoch pleased God and he was not 
found’ (Gen. v. 24)” (“De Mutat. Nom.,”’ § 4). 


It is a portion of the narrative Scriptures which is thus ad- 
duced. 


“But let us stick to the subject before us and follow the Scripture 
(axodov0joavres TS Noyiw) and say that there is such a thing as wisdom 
existing, and that he who loves wisdom is wise’’ (do). 


Here 70 \oyuov is either Scripture in general, or, perhaps more 
probably, the passage previously under discussion and still 
in mind (Gen. v. 24). 


““Maprupet 5€ wor Noytov 76 xpnobev eri Tod ’ABpadu 7o6e, ‘He came 
into the place of which the Lord God had told him; and having looked 
up with his eyes, he saw the place afar off (Gen. xxii. 9)’” (“De 
Somniis,’’ i. 11). 


This narrative passage of Scripture is here cited as \oy.ov 76 
xpno lev. 


‘This is a boast of a great and magnanimous soul, to rise above 
all creation, and to overleap its boundaries and to cling to the great 
uncreated God above, according to his sacred commands (xara ras 
lepas bWnyjoes) In which we are expressly enjoined ‘to cleave unto 
him’ (Deut. xxx. 20). Therefore he in requital bestows himself as their 
inheritance upon those who do cleave unto him and who serve him 
without intermission; and the sacred Scripture (Ady.ov) bears its testi- 
mony in behalf of these, when it says, ‘The Lord himself is his in- 
heritance’ (Deut. x. 9)”’ (“De Congressu erud. grat.,’”’ § 24, p. 448). 


Here the anarthrous \oy.ov is probably to be understood of 
‘a passage of Scripture’’ — viz., that about to be cited. 


362 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


tod 


“Moreover she (Consideration) confirmed this opinion of hers by 
the sacred scriptures (xpnopyots), one of which ran in this form (évl pep 
rouse — without verb) (Deut. iv. 4)... . She also confirmed her state- 
ment by another passage in Scripture of the following purport (érépw 
roude Xpnous) (Deut. xxx. 15) . . . and in another passage we read (kal 
éy érépois) (Deut. xxx. 20). And again this is what the Lord himself 
hath said... (Lev. x. 3)... as it is also said in the Psalms (Ps. exiil. 
25)... but Cain, that shameless man, that parricide, is nowhere 
spoken of in the Law (otéauod 7Hs vouobecias) as dying: but there is 
an oracle delivered respecting him in such words as these (4AAd kal 
oyov Eat Ex’ alt xpnobev roodrov): ‘The Lord God put a mark upon 
Cain’ (Gen. iv. 15)” (“De Profug.,”’ § 11, M. i. 555). 


Here it is questionable whether ‘‘the Law” (7 vouoecia) is 
not broad enough to include all the passages mentioned — 
from Genesis, Leviticus and the Psalms — as it is elsewhere 
made to include Joshua (‘‘ De Migrat. Abrah.,”’ § 32, M. i, 464. 
See Ryle: p. xix). At all events, whatever is in this voyobecia 
is a xpynobev NOyrov: the passage more particularly adduced 
being a narrative one. 


“After the person who loves virtue seeks a goat by reason of his 
sins, but does not find one; for already as the sacred Scripture tells us 
(ws dndot 7d Aoyuov), ‘It hath been burnt’ (Lev. x. 16) .. . Accordingly 
the Scripture says (¢noatv oty 6 xpnouos) that Moses ‘sought and sought 
again,’ a reason for repentance for his sins in mortal life . . . on which 
account it is said in the Scripture (6.6 \éyerar) (Lev. xvi. 20)”’ (“De 
Profug.,”’ § 28, M. i. 569). 


Here 70 \oytov seems to mean not so much a passage in Scrip- 
ture as ‘‘Scripture”’ in the abstract: Lev. x. 16 not being 
previously quoted in this context. The same may be said of 
the reference of 6 xpyopds in the next clause and of the simple 
Aeyerar lower down — the interest of the passage turning 
on the entire equivalence of the three modes of adducing 
Scripture. 


“ This then is the beginning and preface of the prophecies of 
Moses under the influence of inspiration (rjjs kat’ évOovetacuov rpopyrelas 
Mwicéws). After this he prophesied (Gec7ifer) ... about food... being 
full of inspiration (éredcas). . . . Some thinking, perhaps, that what 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 063 


was said to them was not an oracle (ov xpyopots). . . . But the father 
established the oracle by his prophet (76 \éyov rod rpodjrov). ... He 
gave a second instance of his prophetical inspiration in the oracle 
(Adyrov, anarthrous) which he delivered about the seventh day” (“De 
Vit. Moysis,”’ ui. 35 and 36). 

“And the holy oracle that has been given (76 xpnobév oyiov = 
‘the delivered oracle’; Ryle, ‘the utterance of the oracle’) will bear 
witness, which expressly says that he cried out loudly and betrayed 
clearly by his cries what he had suffered from the concrete evil, that 
is from the body” (‘‘ Quod det. pot. insid.,’”’ § 14, M. I., 200). 


Here the narrative in Gen. iv, somewhat broadly taken, in- 
cluding vers. 8 and 10, is called ro xpyabev Noyrov. 


“There is also something like this in the sacred scriptures where 
the account of the creation of the universe is given and it is expressed 
more distinctly (76 raparAnovov Kai év Tots epi THs TOD TavTos yevécEews 
xpnabetor Novyiows TEpLexEeTaL OnwEerwoeoTepov). For it is said to the wicked 
man, ‘O thou man, that hast sinned; cease to sin’ (Gen. iv. 7)” 
(‘De Sobriet.,” § 10, M. 1, 400). 


Here there is a formal citation of a portion of Scripture, viz., 
the portion “ concerning the creation of the universe,’ which 
means, probably, the Book of Genesis (see Ryle’s “ Philo and 
Holy Scripture,” p. xx); and this is cited as made up of 
‘declared oracles,’’ év tots xpyoGetot Noylows. The Book of 
Genesis is thus to Philo a body of xpyaevra oyna. 


‘And this is the meaning of the oracle recorded in Deuteronomy 
(rap’ 6 Kal NoyLov Ere ToOLoOvTOY avayeypaupevoy év Aevtepovopiw), ‘Behold 


I have put before thy face life and death, good and evil’” (“Quod 
Deus Immut.,”’ § 10, M. i. 280). 


Here the ‘‘oracle”’ is a ‘‘written”’ thing; and it is written in 
a well-known book of oracles, viz., in ‘‘ Deuteronomy,” the 
second book of the Law. This book, and of course the others 
like it, consists of written oracles. 


“And the words of scripture show this, in which (é6y\o? 6€ 76 
Adyov & @) it is distinctly stated that ‘they both of them went to- 
gether, and came to the plain which God had mentioned to them 
(Gen. xxii. 3)’’ (‘De Migrat. Abrah.” § 30, M. 1. 462). 


364 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


“And for this reason the following scripture has been given to 
men (616 AdyLov ExpHaby Tordvde), ‘Return to the land of thy father and 
to thy family, and I will be with thee’ (Gen. xxxi. 3)” (‘De Migrat. 
Abrah.,”’ § 6, M. i. 440). 


Here, though the words are spoken in the person of God, the 
generalized use of them seems to point to their Scriptural 
expression as the main point. 


‘““Moses chose to deliver each of the ten commandments (éxacrov 
Jeorrifew t&v deka Noyiwv) in such a form as if they were addressed not 
to many persons but to one” (“De Decem Oracul.,” zepi rav Aéxa 
Aoyiwv, § 10). 

‘“ And the sacred scripture (\éyrov, anarthrous) bears its testimony 
in behalf of this assertion, when it says: ‘The Lord himself is his in- 
heritance’ (Deut. x. 9)” (“De Congr. Erud. Grat.,” § 24, M. i. 538). 

“For there is a passage in the word of God (Ady.ov yap éorw) 
that... (Lev. xxvi. 3)” (“De praem. et poen.,” § 17, M. ii. 424). 


Both classes of passages thus exist in Philo’s text in the 
greatest abundance — no more those which speak of words 
of God recorded in Scripture as \oyra than those which speak 
of the words of Scripture as such as equally Aoy.a. Nor are 
we left to accord the two classes of passages for ourselves. 
Philo himself, in what we may call an even overstrained at- 
tempt at systematization, elaborately explains how he dis- 
tinguishes the several kinds of matter which confront him 
in Scripture. The fullest statement is probably that in the 
“De Vita Moysis,”’ iii, 23 (Mangey, ii, 163). Here he some- 
what artificially separates three classes of ‘‘ oracles,” all hay- 
ing equal right to the name. It is worth while to transcribe 
enough of the passage to set its essential contents clearly 
before us. He is naturally in this place speaking directly of 
Moses — as indeed commonly in his tracts, which are con- 
fined, generally speaking, to an exposition of the Pentateuch: 
but his words will apply also to the rest of the ‘‘ sacred books,”’ 
which he uniformly treats as the oracles of God alike with 
the Pentateuch.® He writes: 


69 Cf. on this matter Edersheim in Smith and Wace’s ‘‘ Dictionary of Chris- 
tian Biography,” art. “Philo” (Vol. iv. pp. 386, 387): The only books ‘‘of which 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 365 


“Having shown that Moses was a most excellent king and law- 
giver and high priest, I come in the last place to show that he was 
also the most illustrious of the prophets (xpody7&v). Iam not unaware, 
then, that all the things that are written in the sacred books are 
oracles delivered by him (as rdvra eiol xpnopuol boa & rats iepats BiBdous 
avayeypamta: xpnobevres dv abrov): and I will set forth what more par- 
ticularly concerns him, when I have first mentioned this one point, 
namely, that of the sacred oracles (r&v Aoyiwv) some are represented as 
delivered in the person of God by His interpreter, the divine prophet 
(éx mpoowmou Tod Beod du’ épunvéws tod Oeiov rpophjrov), while others are 
put in the form of question and answer (é« zebcews kal dmoxpioews 
éGecriaOy), and others are delivered by Moses in his own character, 
as a divinely prompted lawgiver possessed by divine inspiration (éx 
mpocwrov Mwicéws éerberdoavtos kal €€ alto KatacxeEvTos). 

“Therefore all the earliest [Gr. rpra = the first of the three 
classes enumerated] oracles are manifestations of the whole of the 
divine virtues and especially of that merciful and boundless character 
by means of which He trains all men to virtue, and especially the 
race which is devoted to His service, to which He lays open the road 
leading to happiness. The second class have a sort of mixture and 
communication (uiéy Kal kowwviav) in them, the prophet asking in- 
formation on the subjects as to which he is in difficulty and God 
answering him and instructing him. The third sort are attributed to 
the lawgiver, God having given him a share in His prescient power by 
means of which he is enabled to foretell the future. 

‘Therefore we must for the present pass by the first; for they are 
too great to be adequately praised by any man, as indeed they could 


it may with certainty be said that they are not referred to by Philo, are Esther and 
the Song of Solomon. The reference to Ecclesiastes is very doubtful, much more 
so than that to Daniel (p. 387 a).” Cf. also Ryle, ‘‘Philo and Holy Scripture,” pp. 
16-35: “It is abundantly clear that to Philo the Pentateuch was a Bible within 
a Bible, and that he only occasionally referred to other books, whose sanctity he 
acknowledged, as opportunity chanced to present itself” (p. 27). Cf. also 
Ewald, “‘ History of Israel,” E. T., vii. 204, 205: ‘‘ Although he uses, and generally 
in the order in which they are now found in the Hebrew Canon, the other books 
much less gradatim than the Pentateuch, their authors are, nevertheless, con- 
sidered by him as of equal holiness and divinity with Moses, and inasmuch as 
from his whole view and treatment of the Scriptures, he can attribute but little 
importance to their authors as authors, or to their names and temporal circum- 
stances, he likes to call them all simply friends, or associates, or disciples of Moses, 
or prefers still more to quote the passage to which he refers simply as a sacred 
song, sacred word, etc.” “It is only the books which we now find collected in the 


366 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


scarcely be panegyrized worthily by the heaven itself and the nature 
of the universe; and they are also uttered by the mouth, as it were, 
of an interpreter (kal dws Aeyerar woavel dv’ Epunvews). But (6é) inter- 
pretation and prophecy differ from one another. And concerning the 
second kind I will at once endeavor to explain the truth, connecting 
with them the third species also, in which the inspired character 
(tOoverbes) of the speaker is shown, according to which he is most 
especially and appropriately looked upon as a prophet.” ” 


A somewhat different distribution of material — now from 
the point of view, not of mode of oracular delivery, but of 
nature of contents —is given at the opening of the tract 
“De prem. et poen.”’ (§ 1, init.): 


“We find then that in the sacred oracles delivered by the prophet 
Moses (7p 61a 700 tpodjtrov Mwicéws Aoviwv) there are three separate 
characters: for a portion of them relates to the creation of the world, 
a portion is historical, and the third portion is legislative.” 


Hebrew Canon which he regarded as holy, and he was both sufficiently learned 
and careful not to rank all the others which were at that time gradually appended 
to the Greek Bible upon an equality with them.” Cf. also Lee, “‘The Inspiration 
of Holy Scripture,” pp. 69, 70. 

70 Compare Ewald, ‘‘ The History of Israel,” E. T., vii. 203, 204: ‘The sacred 
Scriptures are to Philo so immediately divine and holy, that he consistently finds 
in them simply the divine word rather than Scripture, and therefore really every- 
where speaks less of the Sacred Scriptures than of divine oracles [xpyopol, Adyea | of 
which they were wholly composed, or, when he desires to designate them briefly 
as a whole, of the sacred and divine Word, as if the same Logos, of whom he speaks 
so much elsewhere, were symbolized and incorporated in them for all time, as far 
as that is possible in a book [6 éepos, more rarely 6 Oetos Adyos, likewise 6 d6p0ds Néyos 
(e. g., 1. 8308, 27; 681, 17; cf. esp., ii. 163, 44) is the expression which he con- 
stantly uses in this case; cf. esp. i. 676, 37 seq.; 677, 12]. It is true that in the 
case of the general subject matter, of the Pentateuch for instance, he makes a 
certain distinction, inasmuch as some of the oracles come to the prophet, as a 
mere interpreter directly as from the presence and voice of God alone, while others 
are revealed to him by God in answer to his interrogations, and again others have 
their origin in himself when in an inspired state of mind. But he makes this three- 
fold distinction simply because he found it in reading particular passages of the 
Bible, and not with a view of further reflecting upon it and drawing references 
from it. On the contrary, he regards and treats all the sentences and words of the 
Scripture as on a perfect equality and teaches expressly that sacred Scripture must 
be interpreted and applied, as forming even to its smallest particles, one in- 
separable whole (cf. esp. ‘‘ Auch.,’’ 11. 170, 212 seq.; in other respects, cf. i. 554, 14, 
and many other passages of a similar character ].” 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 367 


Accordingly in the tract ‘‘ De Legat. ad Caium,”’ § 31 (Mangey, 
il. 577), we are told of the high esteem the Jews put on their 
laws: 


“For looking upon their laws as oracles directly given to them by 
God Himself (Gedxpnora yap NOyra Tods vduous evar bToAauBavovres) and 
having been instructed in this doctrine from their earliest infancy, 
they bear in their souls the images of the commandments contained in 
these laws as sacred.” 


By the side of this passage should be placed doubtless an- 
other from the “ De Vita Contemplativa,”’ §3, since it appears 
that we may still look on this tract as Philo’s: 


‘And in every house there is a sacred shrine . . . Studying in that 
place the laws and sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy 
prophets (voyueus kal Aoyra SeomicbéevTa 61a tpodynTGv) and hymns and 
psalms and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and 
piety are increased and brought to perfection.”’ 


It is not strange that out of such a view of Scripture Philo 
should adduce every part of it alike as a \oyov. Sometimes, 
to be sure, his discrimination of its contents into classes 
shows itself in the formule of citation; and we should guard 
ourselves from being misled by this. Thus, for example, he 
occasionally quotes a \oy.ov ‘‘from the mouth (or ‘ person’) 
of God’’ — which does not mean that Scriptures other than 
these portions thus directly ascribed to God as speaking, are 
less oracular than these, but only that these are oracles of 
his first class — those that ‘‘are represented as delivered 
from the person of God (€k zpoowzov tod Geov) by his inter- 
preter, the divine prophet.”’ A single instance or two will 
suffice for examples: 


‘And the sacred oracle which is delivered as”’ [dele “as”’] “from 
the mouth” [or “person’’] ‘“‘of the ruler of the universe (Noyov ék 
mTpocwrou beaTriabev TOU TaV dAwV Wyeudvos) Speaks of the proper name of 
God as never having been revealed to anyone “ when God is repre- 


71 The translation here is unusually expanded: the Greek runs Anno? dé kai X. 
e. 7.0.7. 7. &. 9. Tept TOD wedevt SednNABGBat Svoud Te abTov KUptov, KTV. 


368 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


sented as saying, ‘For I have not shown them my name’ (Gen. Vi. 
3)” (‘De Mutat. Nom.,” § 2). “And the oracles” (of xpyopoi which 
is a standing term for ‘the Scriptures’ in Philo) “bear testimony, in 
which it is said to Abraham ék rpocwzov 70d Geod (Gen. xvii. 1)” (ditto, 
§ 5). “And he (Jeremiah the prophet) like a man very much under the 
influence of inspiration (are 7a woAda évOovo.dv) uttered an oracle in 
the character of God (xpnopdv riva ééel rev éx Tpoowrov Tod Geod) speaking 
in this manner to most peaceful virtue: ‘Hast thou not called me as 
thy house’ ete. (Jer. iii. 4)”’ (“De Cherub.,” § 14, M. i. 148). 


The other oracles, delivered not €k mpoowzov Tov Geov but in 
dialogue or in the person of the prophet, are, however, no 
less oracular or authoritative. To Philo all that is in Serip- 
ture is oracular, every passage is a A\oy.ov, of whatever charac- 
ter or length; and the whole, as constituted of these oracles, 
is Ta NOyta, Or perhaps even 70 \dyrovy — the mass of logia or 
one continuous logion. 

It is not said, be it observed, that Philo’s sole mode of 
designating Scripture, or even his most customary mode, is 
as Ta hoya. As has already been stated, he used ypynouds 
equally freely with \oy.ov for passages of Scripture, and oi 
xXpyouwot apparently even more frequently than 7a \éya for 
the body of Scripture. Instances of the use of the two terms 
interchangeably in the same passage have already been in- 
cidentally given.” A very few passages will suffice to illus- 
trate his constant use of xpnoués and ot xpnopoi separately. 

In the following instances he adduces passages of Scrip- 
ture, each as a xpnopos: 


“On this account also the oracle (6 xpnouds) which bears testimony 
against the pretended simplicity of Cain says, ‘You do not think as 
you say’ (Gen. iv. 15)” (“Quod det. potiori insid.,”’ § 45, M. i. 223). 
‘And of the supreme authority of the living God, the sacred scrip- 
ture is a true witness (6 xpnopuds adAnO7}s waptus) which speaks thus 
(Lev. xxv. 23)” (“De Cherub.,” § 31, M. i. 158). “For a man will 
come forth, says the word of God (¢nciv 6 xpynouos) leading a host and 
warring furiously, etc. (Num. xxiv. 7)” (“De Praem. et Poen.,” § 16, 
M. ii. 423). ““And the sacred scripture bears witness to this fact 


72 “De Profug.,” §§ 11 and 28; ‘De Vita Moysis,”’ i. 53; iii. 23, 30, 35, 36. 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 369 


(uaprupel 5€ 6 mepi ToOUTwWY xpnopds): for it says (Num. xxiii. 19)” (“De 
Migrat. Abrah.,” § 20, M. i. 454). “For though there was a sacred 
scripture (xpnopod yap dvros) that ‘There should be no harlot among 
the daughters of the seer, Israel’ (Deut. xxiii. 17)” (“De Migrat. 
Abrah.,”’ § 39, M. i. 472). “And witness is borne to this assertion by 
the scripture (uaprus 6€ kal xpyopuds) in which it is said: ‘I will cause 
to live,’ etc. (Deut. xxxii. 39)” (“De Somniis,” ii. 44, M. i. 698). 
“The oracle (6 xpnouds) given to the all-wise Moses, in which 
these words are contained” (“Quod det. pot. insid.,” §34, M. i. 
215). “Which also the oracle (6 xpnouds) said to Cain” (do., § 21). 
“And I know that this illustrious oracle was formerly delivered from 
the mouth of the prophet (crduare 8 of6a wore rpodnrik® Oeomicbevra 
duamupov ro.dvie xpnopov), ‘Thy fruit,’ etc., (Hos. xiv. 9)” (“De Mutat. 
Nom.,”’ § 24, M. 11. 599). In this last case it is to be noticed that the 
“oracle” is taken from Hosea: the corresponding passage in ‘‘De 
Plant. Noe.,’’ § 33, M. 1, 350, should be compared: ‘“‘ And with this 
assertion, this oracle delivered by one of the prophets is consistent, 
etc. (Hos. xiv. 9) (rottTw kai rapa rie tv rpodyntdv xpynabev avvader 
T006€).”” 


Two other passages may be adduced for their inherent inter- 
est. The first from “ De Profug.,”’ §32 (M. i. 573), where we 
read: 


“There are passages written in the sacred scriptures (of avaypa- 
gevtes xXpnopot) which give proof of these things. What they are we 
must now consider. Now in the very beginning of the history of the 
law there is a passage to the following effect (Gen. i. 6) (aiderai rus 
év apxh Ths vouobecias weTa THY KoopoTottay ebObs ToLdcde).”’ 


Here there is a precise designation where, among “‘ the written 
xXpnopol,’’ a certain one (tts) of them may be found, viz., in 
the beginning of ‘‘The Legislation’? immediately after ‘‘ The 
Creation” (cf. Ryle, p. xxi, note 1). The other is from the 
first book of the “ De Somniis,”’ § 27 (M. i. 646): 


“These things are not my myth, but an oracle (xpyoyds) written 
on the sacred tables (é vats iepats avayeypaymevos orndats), For it says 
(Gen. xlvi. 1).” 


This passage in Genesis is thus an oracle ‘‘written in the 
sacred tablets’? — and thus this phrase emerges as one of 


370 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Philo’s names for the Scriptures. Elsewhere we read some- 
what more precisely: 


‘““ Now these are those men who have lived irreproachably and ad- 
mirably, whose virtues are durably and permanently recorded as on 
pillars in the sacred scriptures (@v rds aperds év Tats lepwraras éornXL- 
revabar ypadats oupBeBnxev)’’ (“De Abrah.,” $1, M. 1. 2). ‘There is 
also in another place the following sentence (ypauua) deeply engraven 
(éorn\crevuévov), (Deut. xxxii. 8)’’ (“De Congr. Erud. Grat.,”’ § 12, 
Meebo): 


The ‘‘Seriptures”’ thus bear to Philo a monumental charac- 
ter: they are a body of oracles written, and more — a body 
of oracles permanently engraved to be a lasting testimony 
forever. 

The designations for Scripture in Philo are, indeed, some- 
what various — such as lepal ypadat (“‘ Quis rerum div. heres,”’ 
§ 32 M. i. 495); tepat Biro. (“ Quod det. pot. insid.,’”’ § 44, 
M. i. 222); rots tepots ypaupacw (“ Legat. ad Caium.,’” §29, 
M. ii. 574). But probably none are used so frequently as, on 
the one hand, \dyos, with various adjectival enhancements. 
—such as 6 mpodyrixds Novos (“‘ De Plantat. Noe,” § 28, M. 
i. 487), 6 Getos Ndyos (‘‘ Legg. Alleg.,” ili, §3, M. i. 89; “De 
Mutat. Nom.,”2 § 20:)°, DéySomniis, 1. 3350183 7) eee 
tepos Novos (“ De Ebriet.,” § 36, M. i. 379; ‘“De Mut. Nom- 
inum,” -§ 38; “Dé Somniis,’” 4. 14, 22) 3335037, 50 ee ae 
4,9, 37, etc.); and especially, on the other hand, ot xpnawpot, 
occurring at times with extraordinary frequency.” Some 
passages illustrative of this last usage are the following: 


‘For the sacred Scriptures (of xpnoyot) say that he entered into 
the darkness”’ (“De Mutat. Nom.,” § 2). ‘But the sacred oracles (oi 
xXenopot) are witnesses of that in which Abraham is addressed (the 
words being put in the mouth of God), (& ots Neyerar 73 ’ABpadp éx 
Tpoowmov Tov Geov) (Gen. xvii. 1)”’ (do. § 5). “And these are not my 


73 Philo’s designations of Scripture have been collected by Cl. Frees Horne- 
mann, in his ‘‘Observationes ad illustr. doctr. de Can. V. T. ex. Philone”’ 
(1775); more briefly by Eichhorn in his ‘‘ Hinl. in d. A. Test.’’; and in a not alto- 
gether complete or exact list by Ryle, ‘Philo and Holy Scripture.” 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” ovl 


words only but those of the most holy scriptures (xpnouev rv tepw- 
TaTwy, —anarthrous to bring out the quality in contrast to éuds dos), 
in which certain persons are introduced as saying . . .”’ (do. § 28). Of 
Isaiah xlviil. 22 it is said in do. § 31: Néyos yap dvrws Kal xpnopds éort 
Getos. “ Accordingly the holy scriptures (of ypyoyot) tell us that...” 
(do. $36). ‘Therefore the sacred scriptures (of xpnopoi) represent Leah 
as hated”’ (do. § 44) ‘‘ For she is represented by the sacred oracles (Sua 
T&v xpnouav) as having left off all womanly ways (Gen. xviii. 12)” 
(“De Ebrietat.,”’ § 14, M. i. 365). ““On which account the holy scrip- 
ture (of xpnouoi) very beautifully represent it as ‘a little city and yet 
not a little one’” (‘De Abrah.,” § 31, M. ii. 25). ‘Therefore the 
sacred scriptures (of xpnopot) say (Gen. xxiv. 1)” (“De Sobriet.,” § 4, 
M. 1. 395). “‘ According as the sacred scriptures (of xpynopot) testify, in 
which it is said (Ex. viii. 1)”’ (“De Confus. Ling.,”’ § 20, M. i. 419). 
“On which account it is said in the sacred scriptures (& xpyopots) 
(Deut. vii. 7)” (“De Migrat. Abrah.,’”’ § 11, M. i. 445). ‘“‘God having 
drawn up and confirmed the proposition, as the Scriptures (ot xpyopol) 
show, in which it is expressly stated that (Deut. xxx. 4)”’ (‘De Confus. 
Ling.,’”’ § 38, M. i. 435). 


When we combine these passages with those in which 
Aoytov occurs it will probably not seem too much to say that 
the dominant method of conceiving the Bible in Philo’s mind 
was as a book of oracles. Whether he uses the word \éyuov or 
Xpnopos, it is, of course, all one to him. Indeed, that nothing 
should be lacking he occasionally uses also other synonyms. 
For example, here is an instance of the Homeric word Oeompo- 
mov cropping out: “‘ For there is extant an oracle delivered to 
the wise man in which it is said (Lev. xxvi. 12), (kal yap éore 
xpynobev TS cohG Oeomporiov &v @ eyerar)”’ (“De Somniis,”’ i, 
§23). And this oracular conception of Scripture is doubtless 
the reason why it isso frequently quoted in Philo by the sub- 
jectless @yat, A€éyer, N€yerar (instead of, say, yéypamrar). There 
are in general, speaking broadly, three ways in which one 
fully accepting the divine origin and direct divine authority 
of Scripture may habitually look upon it. He may think of 
it as a library of volumes and then each volume is likely to 
be spoken of by him as a ypad7 and the whole, because the 
collection of volumes, as ai ypadai, or, when the idea of its 


3/2 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


unity is prominently in mind, as itself 7 ypady. On the other 
hand, the sense of its composite character may be somewhat 
lost out of habitual thought, swallowed up in the idea of its 
divine unity, and then its several sentences or passages are 
apt to be thought and spoken of as each a ypauua, and the 
whole, because made up of these sentences or passages, as Ta 
yoaupara. Or, finally, the sense of the direct divine utterance 
of the whole to the soul, and of its immediate divine au- 
thority, may overshadow all else and the several sentences 
or passages of the book be each conceived as an unmediated 
divine word coming directly to the soul — and then each pas- 
sage is likely to be called a Aéyov or xpyopes, and the whole 
volume, because the sum of these passages, Ta Oya oF ot 
xXpnovot — or oécasionally, when its unity is prominently in 
mind, one great To \éy.ov or 6 xpyouos. Each of these three 
ways of looking at the Scriptures of the Old Testament finds 
expression in Philo,“ in Josephus and in the New Testament. 
But it is the last that is most characteristic of the thought of 
Philo, and the first possibly of the writers of the New Testa- 
ment: ” while perhaps we may suspect that the intermediate 


74 As to ypadai, see ‘Quis rerum div. heres,” § 32 (Mangey, i. 495), rap’ 6 kal 
é& iepats ypadats deyerat; “De Abrah.,” §1 (M.ii. 2), ‘‘ Now these are those men who 
have lived irreproachably ... whose virtues are durably and permanently re- 
corded as on pillars, & rats ieowraras ypadats.”’ As to ypdupya, ypaupara, see ‘De 
Congr. Erud. Grat.,” §12 (M.1. 527), "Eore 6é kal érépwht 76 ypdupa TodTO éorn\LTEVLE- 
vov (Deut. xxxil. 8)”; “‘Quod Deus Immut.,” § 2 (M.i. 273), “‘ For in the first book 
of Kings (= I Sam. i. 20), she (Hannah) speaks in this manner: ‘I give him 
(Samuel) unto thee freely,’ the expression here used beirg equivalent to ‘I give 
him unto thee whom thou hast given unto me,’ kara 76 iepwtatrov Mwicéws ypauma 
rovto, ‘My gifts and my offerings, and my firstfruits, ye shall observe to offer unto 
me’”’; ‘“‘Legat. ad Caium,”’ § 29 (M. ii. 574), ‘‘ You have never been trained in the 
knowledge of the sacred Scriptures (ro?s iepots ypdupaow’’; ‘De Vita M.,” ili. 39; 
etc. 

7% In the New Testament ypduya does not occur in the sense of a passage of 
Scripture — as indeed ra ypaupara occurs of Scripture only in II Tim. ui. 15, cf. 
John v. 47. The place of ypduua in this sense is taken in the New Testament by 
yeaon, though it is extreme to say with Lightfoot on Gal. iii. 22 (cf. Westcott on 
John ii. 22) that ypa¢y, alwaysin the New Testament refers to a particular passage. 
On the other hand this use of ypa@q is far from peculiar to the New Testament as 
seems to be implied by Stephens (‘‘Thes.” sub. voc.). Not only does it occur 
familiarly in the Fathers, as e. g. (from Sophocles): Clems. Rom., ii. 2; Justin 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 373 


one was most congenial to the thought of Josephus, who, as 
a man of affairs and letters rather than of religion, would 
naturally envisage the writings of the Old Testament rather 
as documents than as oracles. 

From this survey we may be able to apprehend with some 
accuracy Philo’s place in the development of the usage of the 
word doyov. He has received it directly from profane Greek 
as one of a series of synonyms — oy.ov, xpynouds, Peorpdmuor, 
etc. — denoting a direct word from God, an “‘oracle.”’ He has 
in no way modified its meaning except in so far as a heighten- 
ing of its connotation was inseparable from the transference 
of it from the frivolous and ambiguous oracles of heathendom 
to the revelations of the God of Israel, a heightening which 
was, no doubt, aided by the constant use of’the word in the 
Septuagint — Philos Bible — to translate the Hebrew 77x 
with all its high suggestions. But in this transference he has 
nevertheless given it a wholly new significance, in so far as 
he has applied it to a fixed written revelation and thus im- 
pressed on it entirely new implications. In his hands, \éycov 
becomes, by this means, a synonym of ypaupa, and imports 
‘“a passage of Scripture’’ — conceived, of course, as a direct 
oracle from God. And the plural becomes a synonym of ra 
ypaumara, at ypadal, oi GiBdo., 6 Novos — or whatever other 
terms are used to express the idea of “the Holy Scriptures”’ 
— and imports what we call “the Bible,” of course with the 
implication that this Bible is but a congeries of ‘“‘oracles,’’ or 


Mart., ‘‘Advs. Tryph.,” cc. 56, 65 (a very instructive case), 69, 71 (cf. Otto’s note 
here) and elsewhere; Clems. Alex., ‘‘Cohort ad Gentes.,” ix. ad init.: but also in 
Philo, as e. g., ‘‘De Praem. et Poen.,” § 11 near the end (M. ii. 418): ‘‘ Being con- 
tinually devoted to the study of the Holy Scriptures both in their literal sense and 
also in the allegories figuratively contained in them (é rats pyrats ypadats cai & 
Tats brovoray addAnyopiats),”’ and ‘“‘Quis rerum div. her.,” §53 (M. 1. 511): “And the 
historian connects with his preceding account what follows in consistency with it, 
saying ... (76 dé a&kddovdov rpocvpaiver TH ypadh packwy).” Of course Philo some- 
times uses % ypad7 in the non-technical sense also, of a human treatise: thus at the 
opening of ‘‘De Somniis”’ he refers to what was contained in the preceding treatise 
h pev obv mpd Tabrys ypady weptetxe). What is said in the text is not intended to 
traverse such facts as these, indicating other usages; but is meant only to suggest 
in a broad way what seems to be the primary distinction between the three usages; 
the subsequent development undergone by them is another story. 


374 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


direct utterances of God, or even in its whole extent one 
great ‘‘oracle”’ or utterance of God — that it is, in a word, 
the pure and absolute “Word of God.’”’ But when we say 
that \éy.ov is in Philo’s hands the equivalent of “‘a passage of 
Scripture,’’ we must guard against supposing that there is 
any implication of brevity attaching to it: its implication is 
that of direct divine utterance, not of brevity; and “the pas- 
sage’’ in mind and designated by \oywov may be of any 
length, conceived for the time and the purpose in hand as a 
unitary deliverance from God, up to the whole body of 
Scripture itself.”© Similarly ta \oyra in Philo has not yet 
hardened into a simple synonym of “‘Scripture,’”’ but desig- 
nates any body of the “oracles”? of which the whole Scrip- 
ture is composed — now the “ten commandments,” now the 
Book of Genesis, now the Pentateuch, now the Jewish Law 
in general.” 

There is little trace in Philo of the application made in 
the LX X. of Aéytov to the high priestly breastplate, by which 
it came to mean, not only the oracular deliverance, but the 
place or instrument of divination — though, quoting the 
LX X. as freely as he does, Philo could not help occasionally 
incorporating such a passage in his writings. We read, for 
example, in the ‘“‘ Legg. Allegor.,” iii, § 40 (M. i. 111): 


“ At all events the Holy Scripture (6 tepds Aoyos), being well aware 
how great is the power of the impetuosity of each passion, anger and 
appetite, puts a bridle in the mouth of each, having appointed reason 
(rov Noyov) as their charioteer and pilot. And first of all it speaks thus 
of anger, in the hope of pacifying and curing it, ‘And you shall put 
manifestation and truth’ [the Urim and Thummim ] ‘in the oracle of 
judgment (éri 76 Aoyrov TH Kpicewv) and it shall be on the breast of 
Aaron, when he comes into the Holy Place before the Lord’ (Ex. 


76 Thus of the passage cited above: in “‘Quod det pot. insid.,” § 14, the refer- 
ence is to the narrative of Gen. iv; in ‘‘De Vita Moysis,” iil. 35, to the whole 
legislation concerning food; in ‘‘ De Profug.,” § 28, and ‘“‘De Mutat. Nom.,” § 4, 
apparently to the whole Bible. 

7 “Tye Decem Oraculis,” title and § 10; ‘‘De Sobrietate,” § 10; ‘‘De Praem. 
et Poen.,” § 1; ‘‘De Vita Moysis,” iii. § 23; ‘‘De Legat. ad Caium,” § 31; “De 
Vita Contemplativa,” § 3. 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 379 


xxviil. 30). Nor by the oracle (Aéy.ov) is here meant the organs of 
speech which exist in us. . . . For Moses here speaks not of a random, 
spurious oracle (dyov) but of the oracle of judgment, which is 
equivalent to saying a well-judged and carefully examined oracle.”’ 


Thus Philo gradually transmutes the \éy.iov = doyeltov of his 
text into the Ady.ov = xpynopeds of his exposition: and it is a 
little remarkable how little influence this LX X. usage has on 
his own use of the word. With him \dyror is distinctively a 
passage of Scripture, and the congeries of these passages 
make 7a oyna. 

That this usage is not, however, a pecultwm of Philo’s 
merely, is evidenced by a striking passage from Josephus, in 
which it appears in full development. For example, we read: 


“The Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their 
temple square, though they had it written in their sacred oracles 
(avayeypappevor ev Tots Noyiows) that their city and sanctuary should be 
taken when their temple should become square. But what most stirred 
them up was an ambiguous oracle (ypyoyos) that was found also in 
their sacred writings (év rots iepots ebvpnuévos ypdupacy) that about that 
time one from their country should become ruler of the world. The 
Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves, and many wise men 
were thereby deceived in their judgment. Now this oracle (76 \dyrov) 
certainly denoted the rule of Vespasian”’ (“De Bello Jud.,” vi. 5, 4). 


In this short passage we have most of the characteristics of 
the Philonean usage repeated: here is the interchangeable 
usage of \oyrov and xpyopods, on the one hand, and of 7a \oyra 
and Ta ypamuata, on the other: the sacred writings of the 
Jews are made up of “‘oracles,’”’ so that each portion of them 
is a Aoytov and the whole 7a Adyra. 


IV. That this employment of ra \éyra as a Synonym of 
ait ypadat was carried over from the Jewish writers to the 
early Fathers, Dr. Lightfoot has sufficiently shown in a brief 
but effective passage in his brilliant papers in reply to the 


78 Cf. the echo of Josephus’ language in Tacitus, “‘ Hist.,”’ v. 13: ‘‘ Pluribus 
persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum litteris (= é rots tepots ypaupact) contineri, eo 
ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens profectique Judea rerum potirentur. Quae 
ambages (= xpnouds dupiBoros = 7d A6yov) Vespasianum et Titum praedixerant.” 


376 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


author of ‘Supernatural Religion.’’” It is not necessary to go 
over the ground afresh which Dr. Lightfoot has covered. But, 
for the sake of a general completeness in the presentation of 
the history of the word, it may be proper to set down here 
some of the instances of its usage in this sense among the 
earlier Fathers. Clement of Rome, after having quoted ex- 
amples from the Scriptures at length, sums up the lesson 
thus: “The humility, therefore, and the submissiveness of so 
many great men, who have thus obtained a good report, hath 
through obedience made better not only us, but also the 
generations which were before us, even them that received 
his oracles in fear and truth” (c. 19); again (c. 53), “For ye 
know, and know well the sacred Scriptures (ras iepas ypadas), 
dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God 
(Ta Nova TOD Beod)’’; and still again (c. 62), “And we have put 
you in mind of these things the more gladly, since we knew 
well that we were writing to men who are faithful and highly 
accounted and have diligently searched into the oracles of 
the teaching of God (ra \oyta THs Tadeias Tod Geov).’’ The same 
phenomenon obviously meets us here as in Philo: and Har- 
nack ® and Lightfoot * both naturally comment to this effect 
on the middle instance — the former calling especially at- 
tention to the equation drawn between the two phrases for 
Scripture, and the latter to the fact, as shown by the Scrip- 
tures immediately adduced, that the mind of the writer in 
so designating Scripture was not on ‘“‘any divine precept or 
prediction, but the example of Moses.’ Equally strikingly, we 
read in II Clem., xiii, “For the Gentiles when they hear from 
our mouth the oracles of God, marvel at them for their 
beauty and greatness..... For when they hear from us that 
God saith, ‘It is no thank unto you, if ye love them that 
love you, but this is thank unto you, if you love your enemies 
and them that hate you [ Luke vi. 32]’ — when they hear 
these things, I say, they marvel at their exceeding goodness.” 


9 The Contemporary Review, August, 1875, p. 400; ‘“‘Essays on the Work 
entitled Supernatural Religion” (1889), p. 173. 
80 In loc. 81 Loc. cit. 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” od 


“The point to be observed,” says Lightfoot,® “is that the 
expression here refers to an evangelical record.”’ Similarly 
Polycarp, c. vii, writes: “‘ For every one ‘who will not confess 
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist’ (I John 
iv. 2, 3); and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of 
the cross is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the 
oracles of the Lord (7a éyra Tod Kvpiov) to his own lusts and 
say there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is 
the firstborn of Satan.” On this passage Zahn, followed by 
Lightfoot, very appropriately adduces the parallel in the 
Preface to Irenzeus’ great work, “‘ Against Heresies,’’ where he 
complains of the Gnostics “falsifying the oracles of the Lord 
(ra Noyta Kupiov), becoming bad exegetes of what is well 
said’’: while later (“Her.,’’ i. 8, 1) the same writer speaks of 
the Gnostics’ art in adapting the dominical oracles (ra xuptaxa 
oyea) to their opinions, a phrase he equates with “the oracles 
of God,” and uses in a context which shows that he has the 
whole complex of Scripture in mind. In precisely similar 
wise, Clement of Alexandria is found calling the Scriptures 
the “oracles of truth” (‘‘ Coh. ad Gent.,”’ p. 84 ed. Potter), the 
“oracles of God” (“‘ Quis Div. Sal.,’’ 3) and the “inspired 
oracles” (‘‘Strom.,”’ i. 392); and Origen, ‘“‘the oracles,” “the 
oracles of God” “De Prin.,” iv. 11; in Matt., x. § 6): and Basil, 
the “sacred oracles,” “the oracles of the Spirit”’ (“‘Hom.,”’ xi. 
5; xii. 1). The Pseudo-Ignatius (“ad Smyr.,”’ iii) writes: “ For 
the oracles (ra \oyua) say: ‘This Jesus who was taken up from 
you into heaven,’ etc. [ Acts i. 11 |’? — where the term cer- 
tainly is just the equivalent of 7 ypad7.** And Photius tells 
us (“‘ Bibl.,’’ 228) that the Scriptures recognized by Ephraem, 
Patriarch of Antioch (circa 525-545 A.D.), consisted of the 
Old Testament, the Dominical Oracles (ra xupraxa NOyia) and 
the Preaching of the Apostles’? — where the adjective xupiaxa 
is obviously intended to limit the broad 7a Adyua, so that the 
phrase means just ‘“‘the Gospels.”’ 
82 In loc. 


83 Cf. what Prof. Ropes says of this passage in The American Journal of 
Theology, October, 1899 (iii. 698) and his strictures on Resch’s use of it. 


378 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Dr. Lightfoot’s object in bringing together such passages, 
it will be remembered, was to fix the sense of \éyra in the 
description which Eusebius gives of the work of Papias and 
in his quotations from Papias’ remarks about the Gospels of 
Matthew and Mark. Papias’ book, we are told by Eusebius 
(“H. E.,” iii, 39), was entitled Aoyiwy xupraxav éEnyjnoers — that 
is, obviously, from the usage of the words, it was a com- 
mentary on the Gospels, or less likely, on the New Testa- 
ment: and he is quoted as explaining that Matthew wrote 7a 
\oyea in the Hebrew language and that Mark made no at- 
tempt to frame a otvtaéw Tv Kuptax@v doyiwv,** or, as 1S ex- 
plained in the previous clause, of ra bio Tov XpioTov 7 AexXOevTa 
) wpaxdévra — that is, as would seem again to be obvious, 
each wrote his section of the “Scriptures” in the manner de- 
scribed. The temptation to adjust these Papian phrases to 
current theories of the origin of the Gospels has proved too 
strong, however, to be withstood even by the demonstration 
of the more natural meaning of the words provided by Dr. 
Lightfoot’s trenchant treatment: and we still hear of Papias’ 
treatise on the ‘‘ Discourses of the Lord,”’ and of the “ Book 
of Discourses”? which Papias ascribes to Matthew and which 
may well be identified (we are told) with the “‘ Collection of 
Sayings of Jesus,’’ which criticism has unearthed as lying 
behind our present Gospels.* Indeed, as time has run on, 


84 Or dywr, as is read by both Schwegler and Heinichen: contra Routh, 
Lightfoot and Gebhardt-Harnack. 

85 If there ever was such a “Collection of Sayings of Jesus,” the natural title 
of it would certainly not be 7a xvpraxa Adyra, but something like the 4 cbvratts r&v 
Kuptax@yv Noywv Which Papias says (if we adopt the reading \éywv) Mark did not 
write. We observe with astonishment, the venerable Prof. Godet saying, in his 
recent volume on the Gospels, that the existence of such collections of \éyra is now 
put beyond doubt by the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus fragment. The last word 
has doubtless not been said as to the nature and origin of this fragment: but that 
it was a collection of AOTIA rests solely on the ascription of that title to it by its 
editors — a proceeding which in turn rests solely on their traditional misunder- 
standing of the Papian phrase. And that Matthew’s “‘Logia”’ were “‘Logia”’ like 
these is scarcely a supposable case to a critic of Prof. Godet’s views. Meanwhile 
we cannot but account it unfortunate that Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt should 
have attached so misleading a title to their valuable discovery: to which it is 
suitable only in one aspect, viz., as describing these ‘‘sayings” of Jesus as (in 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 379 


there seems in some quarters even a growing disposition to 
neglect altogether the hard facts of usage marshaled by Dr. 
Lightfoot, and to give such rein to speculation as to the 
meaning of the term \oya as employed by Papias, that the 
last end of the matter would appear to threaten to be worse 
than the first. We are led to use this language by a recent con- 
struction of Alfred Resch’s, published in the “‘ Theologische 
Studien” dedicated to Bernhard Weiss on his seventieth birth- 
day. Let us, however, permit Resch to speak for himself. He 
is remarking on the identification of the assumed funda- 
mental gospel (Urevangeltum) with the work of Matthew 
mentioned by Papias. He says: 


“Thus the name —)ddya—and the author — Matthew — 
seemed to be found for this Quellenschrift. In the way of this 
assumption there stood only the circumstance that the name ‘dédyra’ 
did not seem to fit the Quellenschrift as it had been drawn out by 
study of the Gospels, made wholly independently of the notice of 
Papias — since it yielded a treatise of mixed narrative and discourses. 
This circumstance led some to characterize the Quellenschrift, in 
correspondence with the name doya, as a mere collection of dis- 
courses; while others found in it a reason for sharply opposing the 
identification of the Logia of Matthew and the fundamental gospel 
(Urevangelium), or even for discrediting the whole notice of Papias 
as worthless and of no use to scholars. No one, however, thought of 
looking behind the \dyca for the hidden Hebrew name, although it was 
certainly obvious that a treatise written in Hebrew could not fail to 
have a Hebrew title. And I must myself confess that only in 1895, 
while the third volume of my ‘ Aussercanonischen Paralleltexte’ was 
passing through the press, did it occur to me to ask after the Hebrew 
name of the Néya. But with the question the answer was self-evi- 
dently at once given: 857,°° therefore pv" 737. To this answer at- 
tached itself at once, however, the reminiscence of titles ascribed in 
the Old Testament to a whole series of Quellenschriften: Sxvaw “35, 
Jat WT IST, 8327 ym) “IS9, (AXA) Ina ta “at (cf. I Chron. xxix. 
29); rinsw at mae (I Kings xi. 41); 782 159, Oxter ‘25n “Sn (II 
the conception of the compiler, as the constant Aéye shows) ‘‘oracular utterances” 


of present and continuous authority. 
86 Why should Resch, we may ask, think of 1=7 instead of ‘TV98 as the 
Hebrew original of \édyiov ? Cf. above p. 353. 


380 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


Chron. xxxiii. 18). As, then, there in the Old Testament, it is Just 
historical Quellenschriften of biographical contents that bear the 
name of 0735, so this New Testament Quellenschrift, the title 
my 127. It contained therefore the history of Him of whom the 
prophets had prophesied, Who was greater than Solomon, David’s 
Son and David’s Lord and the King of Israel. And as the LXX. had 
translated the title 125, certainly unskillfully enough by Adya, so 
Papias or his sponsor (Gewdhrsmann) by d\oyra. The sense, however, 
of the Hebrew 2°73" is, as Luther very correctly renders it — ‘His- 
tories.’ Cf. Heft ii. 812. By this discovery of the original title, the 
New Testament Quellenschrift which from an unknown had al- 
ready become a known thing, has now become from an unnamed a 
named thing. The desiderated x has been completely found.” *” 


Criticism like this certainly scorns all facts. The Hebrew 
word "35, meaning a “ word,”’ passed by a very readily under- 
stood process into the sense of “‘thing.’’ In defining the term 
as used in the titles which Resch adduces, Dr. Driver says: *® 
‘words: hence affairs, things —in so far as they are done, 
‘acts’; in so far as they are narrated, ‘history.’’’ The word 
sa thus readily lent itself, in combinations like those ad- 
duced by Resch, to a double meaning: and it is apparently 
found in both these senses. In instances like n>xip "25 (Eccl. 
1. Leet: Prov.) xxx.) Lfixxxi Seer lev A mt lee No nae 
it doubtless means “ words of Koheleth,” and the like. In 
the instances adduced by Resch, it is doubtless used in the 
secondary sense of “history.’? The Greek word )dyos, by 
which 735 was ordinarily translated in the LX X., while natu- 
rally not running through a development of meaning exactly 
parallel to that of 755, yet oddly enough presented a fair 
Greek equivalent for both of these senses of “725, used in 
titles: and why Resch should speak of \oyou as unskillfully 
used in the titles he adduces, does not appear on the surface 
of things. Certainly, from Herodotus down, oi \dyou bore the 
specific meaning of just “‘ Histories,’ as afterwards it bore 
the sense of “ prose writings’’: and the early Greek historians 


87 Op. cit., p. 121 seq. 
88 “Introduction,” last ed., 527, note 1. 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 381 


were called accordingly of \oyoypador.8? The LX X. translators, 
in a word, could scarcely have found a happier Greek render- 
ing for the titles of the Quellenschriften enumerated in I Chron. 
xxix. 29, 30, etc. Who, however, could estimate the unskill- 
fulness of translating "25 in such titles by \éyua — a word 
which had no such usage and indeed did not readily lend 
itself to an application to human “words?” Papias (or his 
sponsor) must have been (as Eusebius calls him) a man of 
mean capacity indeed, so to have garbled Matthew’s He- 
brew. It should be noted, further, that Papias does not de- 
clare, as Resch seems to think, that Matthew wrote 7a Noyra 
Tov “Inoov, or even 7a Kupiaka Oya — it is Papias’ own book 
whose title contains this phrase; and it will be hard to sup- 
pose that Papias (or his sponsor) was a man of such mean 
capacity as to fancy the simple 7a \éya a fair equivalent for 
the Hebrew mv" 55 in the sense of “ The History of Jesus.” 
If he did so, one does not wonder that he has had to wait two 
thousand years for a reader to catch his meaning. Such specu- 
lations, in truth, serve no other good purpose than to exhibit 
how far a-sea one must drift who, leaving the moorings of 
actual usage, seeks an unnatural meaning for these phrases. 
Their obvious meaning is that Papias wrote an “ Exposition 
of the Gospels,”’ and that he speaks of Matthew’s and Mark’s 
books as themselves sections of those “‘Seriptures”’ which he 
was expounding. Under the guidance of the usage of the word, 
this would seem the only tenable opinion.” 

It is not intended, of course, to imply that there is no 
trace among the Fathers of any other sense attaching to the 


89 See Liddell and Scott, swb. voc., iv. and v. 

9° We must account it, then, as only another instance of that excess of caution 
which characterizes his application of the ‘‘apologetical” results of investigation, 
when Dr. Sanday still holds back from this conclusion and writes thus: ‘‘The 
word \éya, indeed, means ‘oracles’ and not ‘discourses.’ But while the term ‘the 
oracles’ might well from the first have been applied to our Lord’s words it is 
hardly likely that it should so early have been applied to a writing of the New 
Testament as such. Moreover, even when the inspiration of the New Testament 
had come to be as clearly recognized as that of the Old Testament, the term ‘the 
oracles’ would not have been a fitting one for a single work, simply on the ground 
that it formed part of the collection” (Hastings’ “Bible Dictionary,” i. p. 235 a). 


382 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


words 76 Adyuov, Ta AOYta, than “the Seriptures”’ as a whole. 
Other applications of the words were found standing side 
by side with this in Philo, and they are found also among 
the Fathers. To Adyuov, used of a specific text of Scripture, for 
example, is not uncommon in the Fathers. It is found, for in- 
stance, in Justin Martyr, “‘Apol.,”’ i. 32: ““And Jesse was his 
forefather xara 76 \oytov’’ — to wit, Isa. xi. 1, Just quoted. 
It is found in Clement of Alexandria (‘‘ Strom.,’’ ii. Migne, i. 
949a), where Isa. vii. 9 is quoted and it is added: “It was 
this \oyov that Heraclitus of Ephesus paraphrased when he 
said....” It is found repeatedly in Eusebius’ “ Ecclesias- 
tical History,” in which the Papian passages are preserved, as, 
e. g., ix. 7, ad fin., “So that, according to that divine (Getov) 
Noy.ov,”’ viz., Matt. xxiv. 24; x. 1, 4, “ the Aoyov thus enjoin- 
ing us,”’ viz., Ps. xevii. (xeviii.) 1; x. 4, 7, “ concerning which a 
certain other divine \éy.ov thus proclaims,” viz., Ps. lxxxvi. 
(Ixxxvii.) 3. Ta Néya is also used in the Fathers, as in Philo, 
for any body of these Scriptural \oy.a, however small or large 
(i. e., for any given section of Scripture) —as, e. g., for the Ten 
Commandments. It is so used, forinstance, in the ““Apostolical 
Constitutions,’ ii. 26: ““ Keep the fear of God before your eyes, 
always remembering tay déxa Tod Beot Noyiwy’’; and also in 
Eusebius (H. E., ii. 18, 5). So, again, we have seen it, modified 
by qualifying adjectives, used for the Gospels — and indeed 
it seems to be employed without qualifications in this sense 
in Pseudo-Justin’s “Epistola ad Zeram et Serenum’”’ (Otto, i. 


Apart altogether from the fact that these caveats are founded on a demonstrably 
mistaken conception of the origin of the New Testament Canon, they are in them- 
selves invalid. The term \oyra was contemporaneously applied to writings of the 
New Testament as such —as a glance at II Clem. xii. and Polycarp vil. will 
show — and as Lightfoot’s note on the former passage, correcting his less careful 
earlier note on the latter passage, points out. And that ra Aéyca could easily refer 
to any definite portion of the congeries of ‘‘oracles’”? known also as ‘‘Scripture,” 
Philo’s usage as indicated above (p. 374) sufficiently exhibits. For the rest, it can- 
not be doubted that Papias was understood by all his early readers to mean by 
his ra Aéyra Of Matthew, just Matthew’s Gospel. This has been sufficiently shown 
(“Einleitung,”’ ii. 265) by Zahn, who in his rich and fundamentally right remarks 
on the subject both here and elsewhere (e. g., pp. 254 seg. and ‘‘Geschichte d. 
Kanons,”’ i. 857 seq., ii. 790 seq.) supplies another instance of how near a great 
scholar can come to the truth of a matter without precisely adopting it. 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD” 383 


706). It is further sometimes used apparently not of the Scrip- 
ture text as such, but of certain oracular utterances recorded 
in it— as, for example, when Justin says to Trypho (ce. 18): 
‘For since you have read, O Trypho, as you yourself admitted, 
the doctrines taught by our Saviour, I do not think that I 
have done foolishly in adding some short utterances of his 
(Bpaxéa Tov éxeivov hoya) to the prophetic statements”? — to 
wit, words of Jesus recorded in Matt. xxi, xxiii and Luke xi, 
here put on a level with the oracles of the prophets, but ap- 
parently envisaged as spoken. All these are usages that have 
met us before. 

But there are lower usages also discoverable in the later 
Patristic writers at least. There is an appearance now and 
then indeed as if the word was, in popular speech, losing 
something of its high implication of “solemn oracular utter- 
ances of God,’’ and coming to be applied as well to the words 
of mere men *! — possibly in sequence to its application to 
the words of prophets and apostles as such and the gradual 
wearing down, in the careless popular consciousness, of the 
distinction between their words as prophets and apostles and 
their words as men; possibly, on the other hand, in sequence 
to the freer use of the word in profane speech and the wearing 
away of its high import with the loss of reverence for the 


9 Tn the thirty-fifth chapter of the fourth book of Origen’s ‘‘ Against Celsus,”’ 
there is a passage which is given this appearance in Dr. Crombie’s excellent 
English translation, printed in the ‘‘Ante-Nicene Library” (Am. Ed., iv. 512): 
““And yet if Celsus had wished honestly to overturn the genealogy which he 
deemed the Jews to have so shamelessly arrogated, in boasting of Abraham and 
his descendants (as their progenitors), he ought to have quoted all the passages 
bearing on the subject; and, in the first place, to have advocated his cause with 
such arguments as he thought likely to be convincing, and in the next to have 
bravely refuted, by means of what appeared to him to be the true meaning, and 
by arguments in its favor, the errors existing on the subject (xal rots trép abrijs 
Noylous ra Kara Tov Térov).”’ The renderirg of doyious here by “arguments,” however, 
is certainly wrong. The whole context is speaking of Celsus’ misrepresentation of 
the teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures; and what Origen would have him do is to 
point out the passages in them which will bear out his allegations. According to 
Koetschau’s index the word occurs but twice elsewhere in the treatise ‘‘ Against 
Celsus,” viz., V. xxix. ad fin., and VI. lxxvii. near the end (inserted by Koetschau 
from Philoc. 85, 16): and in both of these cases the high meaning of the word is 


unmistakable. 


O84 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


thing designated. Thus we read as early as in the “ Acts of 
Xanthippe and Polyxena,’”’ edited by Prof. James for the 
‘Cambridge Texts and Studies,’ and assigned by him to the 
middle of the third century (c. 28, p. 78), the following dia- 
logue, in the course of a conversation between Polyxena and 
Andrew, ‘‘the apostle of the Lord’’: “ Andrew saith: ‘Draw 
not near me, child, but tell me who thou art and whence.’ 
Then saith Polyxena: ‘I am a great friend of these here (€v7 
Tav évtav0a), but I see thy gracious countenance and thy logia 
are as the logia of Paul and I presume thee, too, to belong to 
his God.’”’ If we may assume this to mark a transition stage 
in the usage, we may look upon a curious passage in John of 
Damascus as marking almost the completion of the sinking 
of the word to an equivalence to pnuara. It occurs in his 
‘“Disput. Christiani et Saraceni’”’ (Migne, i. 1588, iii. 1344). 
The Saracenic disputant is represented as eager to obtain an 
acknowledgment that the Word of God, that is Christ, is a 
mere creature, and as plying the Christian with a juggle on 
the word \oyta. He asks whether the \oyra of God are create 
or increate. If the reply is “create,” the rejoinder is to be: 
“Then they are not gods, and you have confessed that 
Christ, who is the Word (Adyos) of God is not God.” If, on 
the other hand, the reply is “increate,’’ the rejoinder ap- 
parently is to be that the \éyra of God nevertheless are not 
properly gods, and so again Christ the \déyos is not God. Ac- 
cordingly John instructs the Christian disputant to refuse 
to say either that they are create or that they are increate, 
but declining the dilemma, to reply merely: “‘I confess one 
only Aéyos of God that is increate, but my whole Scripture 
(ypapy) I do not call Aoyra, but pnuata Oeov.”’ On the Saracen 
retorting that David certainly says Ta Noyra (not pyuata) of 
the Lord are pure \oy.a, the Christian is to reply that the 
prophet speaks here rporodoyixs, and not KuprodoyKds, that 
is to say, not by way of a direct declaration, but by way of 
an indirect characterization. It is a remarkable logomachy 
that we are thus treated to: and it seems to imply that in 
John’s day Noyra had sunk to a mere synonym of pnuara. 








“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 385 


That men had then ceased to speak of the whole ypad# as Té 
Geta A\oyia we know not to have been the case: but apparently 
this language was now made use of with no more pregnancy 
of meaning than if they had said 7a Oe?a pnuara. This process 
seems to have continued, and in the following passage from 
a work of the opening of the eleventh century — the “Life of 
Nilus the Younger,” published in the 120th volume of Migne’s 
“Pat. Gree.” (p. 97 D), — we have an instance of the extreme 
extension of the application of the word: ‘“‘Then saith the 
_ Father to him: ‘It is not fitting that thou, a man of wisdom 
and high-learning, should think or speak 74 rv xowdv dvOpu- 
Tov hoyra.’’’ ** And accordingly we cannot be surprised to 
find that in modern Greek the word is employed quite freely 
of human speech. Jannaris tells us that it is used in the sense 
of “maxim,” and that in colloquial usage ra Méyra May mean 
“promise”? — in both of which employments there may re- 
main a trace of its original higher import.%* While Konto- 
poulos gives as the English equivalents of \éyrov, the follow- 


2 Dr. F. W. Farrar, with his fatal facility for quoting phrases in senses far 
other than those attached to them by their authors (other instances meet us in his 
dealing with the formula ‘‘ Scriptura complectitur Verbum Det” and with the word 
‘“‘TInspiration”’ in the same context, — see pp. 369, 370 of work cited) makes a 
thoroughly wrong use of this passage (‘‘ Hist. of Interpretation,” p. 374, note 2). 
He says: “But as far back as the eighth century the eminently orthodox Father, 
St. John of Damascus, had said, ‘We apply not to the written word of Scripture 
the title due to the Incarnate Word of God.’ He says that when the Scriptures are 
called Aéyra Geo§ the phrase is only figurative, ‘Disput. Christiani et Saraceni’ 
(see Lupton, St. John of Damascus, p. 95).’’ But John says the Scriptures are 
called without figure pnuara rod Oecd: he only means to say they are not God’s 
Word in the same sense that the Logos is: in comparison with Him who is the only 
incarnate Word of God, they are only figuratively words of God, but they are 
real words of God, nevertheless, His sj7uara, by which designation, rather than 
Noyta, John would have them called, not to avoid confessing them to be God’s 
utterances, but to escape a Moslem jibe. 

93 An instance of the secular use of the word in this lowered meaning, is found 
doubtless in the Scholium on the ‘‘ Frogs” of Aristophanes adduced above, p. 336. 
The date of this Scholium is uncertain, but it seems to belong to the later strata of 
the Scholia. It is not found in the ‘Ravenna MS.,” which Rutherford is publish- 
ing; nor in the ‘‘ Venetus” (Marc. 474), cf. Blaydes, ‘‘Ranae,” p. 391; nor indeed 
in four out of the six MSS. used by Dindorf (iv. 2, p. 113). 

% In his ‘Concise Dictionary of English and Modern Greek,’ sub. vocc. 
“word” and “saying.” 


386 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ing list: “A saying, a word; a maxim; a motto, an oracle; 
7a beta Noyta, the divine oracles, the sacred Scriptures.’’ * 
Thus not only all the usages of the word found, say, in 
Philo, are continued in the Fathers, but there is an obvious 
development to be traced. But this development itself is 
founded on and is a witness to the characteristic usage of the 
word among the Fathers — that, to wit, in which it is applied 
to the inspired words of prophets and apostles. And by far 
the most frequent use of the word in the Patristic writings 
seems to be that in which it designates just the Holy Scrip- 
tures. Their prevailing usage is very well illustrated by that 
of Eusebius. We have already quoted a number of passages 
from his “ Ecclesiastical History ’’ in which he seems to adduce 
special passages of Scripture, each as a \oywov. More common 
is it for him to refer to the whole Scriptures as 7a Aoya, or 
rather (for this is his favorite formula) ta @eta A\déyra — and 
that whether he means the Old Testament (which in the 
‘Prep. Evang.,” ii. 6 [Migne, iii. 140 A], he calls 7a ’"EGpaiwy 
Noyta), or the New Testament, or refers to the prophetic or the 
narrative portions. Instances may be found in “H. E.,”’ v., 
17, 5, where we are told that Miltiades left monuments of his 
study of the @eta Adyia; vi. 23, 2, where the zeal of Origen’s 
- friend Ambrose for the study of the #eta \oyra is mentioned as 
enabling Origen to write his commentaries on the Oetar ypadat; 
ix. 9, 8, where a sentence from Ex. xv. 1 is quoted as from the 
deta NOyta; x. 4, 28, where Ps. lvii. (Iviii.), 7 is quoted from 
the Oeta Adyia; ‘‘ Palestinian Martyrs,” xi. 2, where the de- 
votion of the Palestinian martyrs to the 6eva \éyra is adverted 
to. Even the singular — 70 \oyrov — seems occasionally used 
by Eusebius (as by Philo) as a designation of the whole Scrip- 
ture fabric. We may suspect this to be the case in “ H. E.,”’ x. 
4, 43, when we read of “the costly cedar of Lebanon of which 
TO Oetoyv \oyvov has not been unmindful, saying, ‘The forests of 
the Lord shall rejoice and the cedars of Lebanon which he 
planted’ (Ps. ev. [civ.] 16).’”’ And we cannot doubt it at 
“H. E.,” ii. 10, 1, where we read concerning Herod Agrippa, 


% Tn his ‘‘New Lexicon of Modern Greek and English,” sub voc. 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” OO/ 


that ‘as 7 rv tpatewv ypady relates, he proceeded to Cesarea 
and....70 \dy.ov relates ‘that the angel of the Lord smote 
him’’’? — in which account it is worth while to observe the 
coincidence of Josephus’ narrative with r7v belay ypadnv. 
Here, of course, 76 \dyov is primarily the Book of Acts — 
but as the subsequent context shows, it represents that book 
only as part of the sacred Scriptures, so that 7d \oytov emerges 
as a complete synonym of 7 Oeta ypadn. Whatever other 
usage may from time to time emerge in the pages of the 
Fathers, the Patristic usage of the term, xar’ é£ox7v, is as a 
designation of the “Scriptures”? conceived as the Word of 
Godt 

In the light of these broad facts of usage, certain lines 
may very reasonably be laid down within which our inter- 
pretation of [7a] Aoyca in the New Testament instances of its 
occurrence should move. It would seem quite certain, for 
example, that no lower sense can be attached to it in these 
instances, than that which it bears uniformly in its classical 
and Hellenistic usage: it means, not “ words” barely, simple 
“utterances,”’ but distinctively “oracular utterances,” di- 
vinely authoritative communications, before which men stand 
in awe and to which they bow in humility: and this high 
meaning is not merely implicit, but is explicit in the term. 
It would seem clear again that there are no implications of 
brevity in the term: it means not short, pithy, pregnant say- 
ings, but high, authoritative, sacred utterances; and it may 
be applied equally well to long as to short utterances — even 
though they extend to pages and books and treatises. It 
would seem to be clear once more that there are no impli- 
cations in the term of what may be called the literary nature 
of the utterances to which it is applied: it characterizes the 
utterances to which it is applied as emanations from God, 
but whether they be prophetic or narrative or legal, parenetic 
or promissory in character, is entirely indifferent: its whole 


96 Sophocles, in his ‘‘ Lexicon,” gives also the following references for this 
sense: Titus of Bostra (Migne, xviii. 1253 B); Serapion of Egypt (Migne, xl. 
908 C, 909 B). References might be added, apparently, indefinitely. 


388 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


function is exhausted in declaring them to be God’s own 
utterances.” And still further, it would seem to be clear that 
it is equally indifferent to the term whether the utterances 
so designated be oral or written communications: whether 
oral or written it declares them to be God’s own Word, and 
it had become customary to designate the written Word of 
God by this term as one that was felt fitly to describe the 
Scriptures as an oracular book — either a body of oracles, or 
one continuous oracular deliverance from God’s own lips. 
This last usage is so strikingly characteristic of the Hel- 
lenistic adaptation of the term that a certain presumption 
les in favor of so understanding it in Hellenistic writings, 
when the Scriptural revelation is in question: though this 
presumption is, of course, liable to correction by the obvious 
implications of the passages as wholes. In such a passage as 
Rom. il. 2 this presumption rises very high indeed, and it 
would seem as if the word here must be read as a designation 
of the “Scriptures”’ as such, unless very compelling reasons 
to the contrary may be adduced from the context. That the 
mind of the writer may seem to some to be particularly 
dwelling upon this or that element in the contents of the 
Seriptures cannot be taken as such a compelling reason to 
the contrary: for nothing is more common than for a writer 
to be thinking more particularly of one portion of what he is 
formally adducing as a whole. The paraphrase of Wetstein 
appears in this aspect, therefore, very judicious: ‘‘ They have 
the Sacred Books, in which are contained the oracles and 
especially the prophecies of the advent of the Messiah and 
the calling of the Gentiles; and by these their minds should 
be prepared”’: though, so far as this paraphrase may seem 
to separate between the Sacred Books and the Oracles they 
contain, it is unfortunate. The very point of this use of the 
word is that it zdentzfies the Sacred Books with the Oracles; 


7 It is therefore a perfectly blind comment that we meet with in Gerhard 
Heine’s recent ‘‘Synonymik des N. T. Griechisch”’ (1898), p. 157 — when in con- 
trast to dAdyos as the ‘‘reasonable expression” of the vots, 76 Aéytov is said to be 
“more the separate utterance, with the (occasional?) accessory notion of promise 
( Rom. iii. 2).” 


“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” 389 


and in this aspect of it Dr. David Brown’s comment is more 
satisfactory: “That remarkable expression, denoting ‘ Divine 
Communications’ in general, is transferred to the sacred 
Scriptures to express their oracular, divinely authoritative 
character.’’ The case is not quite so simple in Heb. v. 12: but 
here, too, the well-balanced comment of Dr. Westcott ap- 
pears to us to carry conviction with it: “The phrase might 
refer to the new revelation given by Christ to His apostles 
(comp. ¢c. 1. 2); but it seems more natural to refer it to the 
collective writings of the Old Testament which the Hebrew 
Christians failed to understand.” In Acts vii. 88 the absence 
of the article introduces no real complication: it merely em- 
phasizes the qualitative aspect of the matter; what Moses 
received was emphatically oracles — which is further en- 
hanced by calling them “lively,” i. e., they were not merely 
dead, but living, effective, operative oracles. The speaker’s 
eye is obviously on Moses as the recipient of these oracles, 
and on the oracles as given by God to Moses, as is recorded 
in the Pentateuch: but the oracles his eye is on are those 
recorded in the Pentateuch, and that came to Moses, not for 
himself, but for the Church of all ages — “to give to us.” 
Here we may hesitate to say, indeed, that Aoy.a means just 
the “Scriptures’’; but what it means stands in a very express 
relation to the Scriptures, and possibly was not very sharply 
distinguished from the Scriptures by the speaker. With the 
analogies in Philo clearly in our mind, we should scarcely go 
far wrong if we conceived of \éy.a here as meaning to the 
speaker those portions of Scripture in which Moses recorded 
the revelations vouchsafed to him by God — conceived as 
themselves these revelations recorded. In I Peter iv. 11 the 
interpretation is complicated by the question that arises con- 
cerning the charisma that is intended, as well as by the cast- 
ing of the phrase into the form of a comparison: “let him 
speak as it were oracles of God.” It is not clear that the 
Divine Scriptures as such are meant here; but the term, in 
any case, retains all its force as a designation of sacred, 
solemn divine utterances: the speaker is to speak as becomes 


390 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


one whose words are not his own, but the very words of 
God — oracles proclaimed through his mouth. Whether it is 
the exercise of the prophetic gift in the strict sense that is 
adverted to, so that Peter’s exhortation is that the prophet 
should comport himself in his prophesying as becomes one 
made the vehicle of the awful words of revelation; or only 
the gift of teaching that is in question, so that Peter’s ex- 
hortation is that he who proclaims the word of God, even 
in this lower sense, shall bear himself as befits one to whom 
are committed the Divine oracles for explanation and en- 
forcement — must be left here without investigation. In 
either case the term is obviously used in its highest sense and 
implies that the A\oyra of God are His own words, His awe- 
some utterances. 

What has thus been said in reference to these New Testa- 
ment passages is intended to go no further in their explana- 
tion than to throw the light of the usage of the word upon 
their interpretation. Into their detailed exegesis we cannot 
now enter. We cannot pass by the general subject, however, 
without emphasizing the bearing these passages have on the 
New Testament doctrine of Holy Scripture. It will probably 
seem reasonable to most to interpret Rom. iil. 2 as certainly, 
Heb. v. 12 as probably, and Acts vii. 38 as very likely mak- 
ing reference to the written Scriptures; and as bearing wit- 
ness to the conception of them on the part of the New 
Testament writers as “‘the oracles of God.’’ That is to say, 
we have unobtrusive and convincing evidence here that the 
Old Testament Scriptures, as such, were esteemed by the 
writers of the New Testament as an oracular book, which in 
itself not merely contains, but is the “utterance,” the very 
Word of God; and is to be appealed to as such and as such 
deferred to, because nothing other than the crystallized 
speech of God. We merely advert to this fact here without 
stopping to develop its implications or to show how conso- 
nant this designation of the Scriptures as the “Oracles of 
God” is with the conception of the Holy Scriptures enter- 
tained by the New Testament writers as otherwise made 





“THE ORACLES OF GOD ” o9l 


known to us. We have lately had occasion to point out in 
this Review some of the other ways in which this conception 
expresses itself in the New Testament writings.*? He who 
cares to look for it will find it in many ways written largely 
and clearly and indelibly on the pages of the New Testament. 
We content ourselves at this time, however, with merely 
pointing out that the designation of the Scriptures as Ta \oyra 
tov Oeou fairly shouts to us out of the pages of the New Testa- 
ment, that to its writers the Scriptures of the Old Testament 
were the very Word of God in the highest and strictest sense 
that term can bear — the express utterance, in all their parts 
and each and every of their words, of the Most High — the 
‘oracles of God.”’ Let him that thinks them something other 
and less than this, reckon, then, with the apostles and proph- 
ets of the New Covenant — to whose trustworthiness as wit- 
nesses to doctrinal truth he owes all he knows about the New 
Covenant itself, and therefore all he hopes for through this 
New Covenant. 

% See article entitled, “It Says; Scripture Says; God Says,” in the number of 


this Review for July, 1899, and also article entitled, ‘‘God-Inspired Scripture,”’ 
in the number for January, 1900. 





xX 
INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 


ee 








INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM! 


Fathers and Brothers: 


It is without doubt a very wise provision by which, in 
institutions such as this, an inaugural address is made a 
part of the ceremony of induction into the professorship. 
Only by the adoption of some such method could it be 
possible for you, as the guardians of this institution, re- 
sponsible for the principles here inculcated, to give to each 
newly-called teacher an opportunity to publicly declare the 
sense in which he accepts your faith and signs your stand- 
ards. Eminently desirable at all times, this seems particu- 
larly so now, when a certain looseness of belief (inevitable 
parent of looseness of practice) seems to have invaded por- 
tions of the Church of Christ, — not leaving even its ministry 
unaffected; — when there may be some reason to fear that 
“enlightened clerical gentlemen may sometimes fail to look 
upon subscription to creeds as our covenanting forefathers 
looked upon the act of putting their names to theological 
documents, and as mercantile gentlemen still look upon en- 
dorsement of bills.”’ ? And how much more forcibly can all 
this be pled when he who appears before you at your call, 
is young, untried and unknown. I wish, therefore, to declare 
that I sign these standards not as a necessary form which 
must be submitted to, but gladly and willingly as the ex- 
pression of a personal and cherished conviction; and, further, 
that the system taught in these symbols is the system which 
will be drawn out of the Scriptures in the prosecution‘of the 

1 The same points may be found discussed in “The Bible Doctrine of 
Inspiration,” read at the Summer School of the Amer. Inst. of Christian Philos- 
ophy, July 7, 1893. Inaugural Address delivered upon the occasion of Dr. War- 
field’s induction into the Chair of New Testament Literature and Exegesis in the 
Western Theological Seminary. 


2 Peter Bayne in ‘‘The Puritan Revolution.” 
395 


396 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


teaching to which you have called me, — not, indeed, be- 
cause commencing with that system the Scriptures can be 
made to teach it, but because commencing with the Scrip- 
tures I cannot make them teach anything else. 

This much of personal statement I have felt it due both 
to you and myself to make at the outset; but having done 
with it, 1 feel free to turn from all personal concerns. 

In casting about for a subject on which I might address 
you, I have thought I could not do better than to take up 
one of our precious old doctrines, much attacked of late, 
and ask the simple question: What seems the result of the 
attack? The doctrine I have chosen, is that of ‘‘ Verbal 
Inspiration.’”’ But for obvious reasons I have been forced 
to narrow the discussion to a consideration of the inspiration 
of the New Testament only; and that solely as assaulted 
in the name of criticism. I wish to ask your attention, then, 
to a brief attempt to supply an answer to the question: 


Is tHE CuHuRCH DOCTRINE OF THE PLENARY INSPIRATION 
oF THE NEw TESTAMENT ENDANGERED BY THE AS- 
SURED RESULTS OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM? 


At the very outset, that our inquiry may not be a mere 
beating of the air, we must briefly, indeed, but clearly, 
state what we mean by the Church Doctrine. For, unhappily, 
there are almost as many theories of inspiration held by 
individuals as there are possible stages imaginable between 
the slightest and the greatest influence God could exercise 
on man. It is with the traditional doctrine of the Reformed 
Churches, however, that we are concerned; and that we 
understand to be simply this: — Inspiration is that extraor- 
dinary, supernatural influence (or, passively, the result of it,) 
exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of our Sacred Books, by 
which their words were rendered also the words of God, and, 
therefore, perfectly infallible. In this definition, it is to be 
noted: Ist. That this influence is a supernatural one — 
something different from the inspiration of the poet or man 








INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 397 


of genius. Luke’s accuracy is not left by it with only the 
safeguards which ‘‘the diligent and accurate Suetonius” 
had. 2d. That it is an extraordinary influence — something 
different from the ordinary action of the Spirit in the con- 
version and sanctifying guidance of believers. Paul had some 
more prevalent safeguard against false-teaching than Luther 
or even the saintly Rutherford. 3d. That it is such an in- 
fluence as makes the words written under its guidance, the 
words of God; by which is meant to be affirmed an absolute 
infallibility (as alone fitted to divine words), admitting no 
degrees whatever — extending to the very word, and to all 
the words. So that every part of Holy Writ is thus held alike 
infallibly true in all its statements, of whatever kind. 

Fencing around and explaining this definition, it is to be 
remarked further: 

Ist. That it purposely declares nothing as to the mode of 


inspiration. The Reformed Churches admit that this is in- ~« 


scrutable. They content themselves with defining carefully 
and holding fast the effects of the divine influence, leaving 
the mode of divine action by which it is brought about 
draped in mystery. 

2d. It is purposely so framed as to distinguish it from 
revelation; — seeing that it has to do with the communica- 
tion of truth not its acquirement. 

3d. It is by no means to be imagined that it is meant to 
proclaim a mechanical theory of inspiration. The Reformed 
Churches have never held such a theory: * though dishonest, 
careless, ignorant or over-eager controverters of its doctrine 
have often brought the charge. Even those special theolo- 
gians in whose teeth such an accusation has been oftenest 
thrown (e. g., Gaussen) are explicit in teaching that the 
human element is never absent.* The Reformed Churches 

3 See Dr. C. Hodge’s ‘‘Systematic Theology,” page 157, Vol. I. 

4 Cf. Gaussen’s ‘“‘Theopneusty,”’ New York, 1842; pp. 34, 36, 44 seq. et 
passim. In these passages he explicitly declares that the human element is never 
absent. Yet he has been constantly misunderstood: thus, Van Oosterzee (‘‘Dog.,”’ 


i. p. 202), Dorner (‘Protestant Theo.,” ii. 477) and even late English and Ameri- 
can writers who, if no others, should have found it impossible to ascribe a me- 


398 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


hold, indeed, that every word of the Scriptures, without 
exception, is the word of God; but, alongside of that, they 
hold equally explicitly that every word is the word of man. 
And, therefore, though strong and uncompromising in re- 
sisting the attribution to the Scriptures of any failure in 
absolute truth and infallibility, they are before all others in 
seeking, and finding, and gazing on in loving rapture, the 
marks of the fervid impetuosity of a Paul — the tender 
saintliness of a John — the practical genius of a James, in 
the writings which through them the Holy Ghost has given 
for our guidance. Though strong and uncompromising in 
resisting all effort to separate the human and divine, they 
distance all competitors in giving honor alike to both by 
proclaiming in one breath that all is divine and all is human. 
As Gaussen so well expresses it, ‘‘We all hold that every 
verse, without exception, is from men, and every verse, 
without exception, is from God’’; ‘‘every word of the Bible 
is as really from man as it is from God.” 

4th. Nor is this a mysterious doctrine — except, indeed, 
in the sense in which everything supernatural is mysterious. 
We are not dealing in puzzles, but in the plainest facts of 
spiritual experience. How close, indeed, is the analogy here 
with all that we know of the Spirit’s action in other spheres! 
Just as the first act of loving faith by which the regenerated 


chanical theory to a man who had abhorrently repudiated it in an English journal 
and in a note prefixed to the subsequent English editions of his work. (See: “It 
is Written,’ London: Bagster & Sons, 3d edition, pp. i-iv.) In that notice he 
declares that he wishes “‘loudly to disavow” this theory, “‘that he feels the great- 
est repugnance to it,” ‘‘that it is gratuitously attributed to him,” ‘‘that he has 
never, for a single moment, entertained the idea of keeping it,” etc. Yet so late a 
writer as President Bartlett, of Dartmouth (Princeton Review, January, 1880, 
p. 34), can still use Gaussen as an example of the mechanical theory. Gaussen’s 
book ought never to have been misunderstood; it is plain and simple. The cause 
of the constant misunderstanding, however, is doubtless to be found in the fact 
that his one object is to give a proof of the existence of an everywhere present 
divine element in the Scriptures, — not to give a rounded statement of the 
doctrine of inspiration. He has, therefore, dwelt on the divinity, and only in- 
cidentally adverted to the humanity exhibited in its pages. Gaussen may serve us 
here as sufficient example of the statement in the text. The doctrine stated in the 
text is the doctrine taught by all the representative theologians in our own church. 





INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 399 


soul flows out of itself to its Saviour, is at once the consciously- 
chosen act of that soul and the direct work of the Holy 
Ghost; so, every word indited under the analogous influence 
of inspiration was at one and the same time the consciously 
self-chosen word of the writer and the divinely-inspired word 
of the Spirit. I cannot help thinking that it is through failure 
to note and assimilate this fact, that the doctrine of verbal 
inspiration is so summarily set aside and so unthinkingly 
inveighed against by divines otherwise cautious and rever- 
ent. Once grasp this idea, and how impossible is it to sepa- 
rate in any measure the human and divine. It is all human — 
every word, and all divine. The human characteristics are to 
be noted and exhibited; the divine perfection and infalli- 
bility, no less. 

This, then, is what we understand by the church doc- 
trine: — a doctrine which claims that by a special, super- 
natural, extraordinary influence of the Holy Ghost, the 
sacred writers have been guided in their writing in such a 
way, as while their humanity was not superseded, it was yet 
so dominated that their words became at the same time the 
words of God, and thus, in every case and all alike, ab- 
solutely infallible. 

I do not purpose now to undertake the proof of this doc- 
trine. I purpose rather to ask whether, assuming it to have 
been accepted by the Church as apparently the true one, 
modern biblical criticism has in any of its results reached 
conclusions which should shake our previously won confi- 
dence in it. It is plain, however, that biblical criticism could 
endanger such a doctrine only by undermining it — by 
shaking the foundation on which it rests — in other words 
by attacking the proof which is relied on to establish it. 
We have, then, so far to deal with the proofs of the doctrine. 
It is evident, now, that such a doctrine must rest primarily 
on the claims of the sacred writers. In the very nature of 
the case, the writers themselves are the prime witnesses of 
the fact and nature of their inspiration. Nor does this argu- 
ment run in a vicious circle. We do not assume inspiration 


400 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


in order to prove inspiration. We assume only honesty and 
sobriety. If a sober and honest writer claims to be inspired 
by God, then here, at least, is a phenomenon to be ac- 
counted for. It follows, however, that besides their claims, 
there are also secondary bases on which the doctrine of the 
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures rests, and by the shak- 
ing of which it can be shaken. These are: — first, the allow- 
ance of their claims by the contemporaries of the writers, 
— by those of their contemporaries, that is, who were in a 
position to judge of the truth of such claims. In the case of 
the New Testament writers this means the contemporary 
church, who had the test of truth in its hands: ‘“Was God 
visibly with the Apostles, and did He seal their claims with 
His blessing on their work?” And, secondly, the absence of 
all contradictory phenomena in or about the writings them- 
selves. If the New Testament writers, being sober and 
honest men, claim verbal inspiration, and this claim was 
allowed by the contemporary church, and their writings in 
no respect in their character or details negative it, then it 
seems idle to object to the doctrine of verbal inspiration on 
any critical grounds. 

In order, therefore, to shake this doctrine, biblical criti- 
cism must show: either, that the New Testament writers do 
not claim inspiration; or, that this claim was rejected by the 
contemporary church; or, that it is palpably negatived by 
the fact that the books containing it are forgeries; or, equally 
clearly negatived by the fact that they contain along with 
the claim errors of fact or contradictions of statement. The 
important question before us to-day, then, is: Has biblical 
criticism proved any one of these positions? 

I. Note, then, in the first place, that modern biblical 
criticism does not in any way weaken the evidence that the 
New Testament writers claim full, even verbal, inspiration. 
Quite the contrary. The careful revision of the text of the 
New Testament and the application to it of scientific prin- 
ciples of historico-grammatical exegesis, place this claim 
beyond the possibility of a doubt. This is so clearly the case, 


— ee ee le oe ae TS 


oes ee ee a 


SS ee a od 








INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 401 


that even those writers who cannot bring themselves to 
admit the truth of the doctrines, yet not infrequently begin 
by admitting that the New Testament writers claim such 
an inspiration as is in it presupposed. Take, for instance, 
the twin statements of Richard Rothe: ‘‘To wish to main- 
tain the inspiration of the subject-matter, without that of 
the words, is a folly; for everywhere are thoughts and words 
inseparable,” and ‘‘It is clear that the orthodox theory of 
inspiration [by which he means the very strictest ] is coun- 
tenanced by the authors of the New Testament.” If we ap- 
proach the study of the New Testament under the guidance 
of and in the use of the methods of modern biblical science, 
more clearly than ever before is it seen that its authors make 
such a claim. Not only does our Lord promise a supernatural 
guidance to his Apostles, both at the beginning of their 
ministry (Matthew x. 19, 20) and at the close of his life 
(Mark xii. 11; Luke xxi. 12, cf. John xiv and xvi) but the 
New Testament writers distinctly claim divine authority. 
With what assurance do they speak — exhibiting the height 
of delirium, if not the height of authority. The historians 
betray no shadow of a doubt as to the exact truth of their 
every word,—a phenomenon hard to parallel elsewhere 
among accurate and truth-loving historians who commonly 
betray less and less assurance in proportion as they exhibit 
more and more painstaking care. The didactic writers claim 
an absolute authority in their teaching, and betray as little 
shadow of doubt as to the perfectly binding character of 
their words (II Cor. x. 7, 8). If opposed by an angel from 
heaven, the angel is indubitably wrong and accursed (Gal. 1. 
7, 8). Therefore, how freely they deal in commands (I Thes. 
iv. 2, 11; II Thes. iii. 6-14); commands, too, which they 
hold to be absolutely binding on all; so binding that it is 
the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize them as the com- 
mandments of God (I Cor. xiv. 37), and no Christian ought 
to company with those who reject them (II Thes. 11. 6-14). 
Nor is it doubtful that this authority is claimed specifically 
for the written word. In I Cor. xiv. 37, it is specifically “‘the 


402 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


things which I am writing” that must be recognized as the 
commands of the Lord; and so in II Thes. 11. 15; 11. 6-14, it 
is the teaching transmitted by letter as well as by word of 
mouth that is to be immediately and unquestionably re- 
ceived. 

Now, on what is this immense claim of authority 
grounded? If a mere human claim, it is most astounding im- 
pudence. But that it is not a mere human claim, is specifically 
witnessed to. Paul claims to be but the transmitter of this 
teaching (II Thes. ili. 6; tapd); it is, indeed, his own (II 
Thes. il. 14, 7ua@v), but still, the transmitted word is God’s 
word (I Thes. iu. 18). He speaks, indeed, and issues com- 
mands, but they are not his commands, but Christ’s, in 
virtue of the fact that they are given through him by Christ 
(I Thes. iv. 2). The other writers exhibit the same phe- 
nomena. Peter distinctly claims that the Gospel was 
preached in (év) the Holy Spirit (I Peter, i. 12); and John 
calls down a curse on those who would in any way alter his 
writing (Rev. xxii. 18, 19; cf. I John, v. 10). These, we sub- 
mit, are strange phenomena if we are to judge that these 
writers professed no inspiration. 

‘But,’ we are asked, ‘‘is this all?’’ We answer, that we 
have but just begun. All that we have said is but a cushion 
for the specific proof to rest easily on. For here we wish to 
make two remarks: 

1. The inspiration which is implied in these passages, is 
directly claimed elsewhere. We will now appeal, however, to 
but two passages. Look at I Cor. vii. 40, where the best and 
most scientific modern exegesis proves that Paul claimed for 
his ‘“‘opinion”’ expressed in this letter direct divine inspira- 
tion, saying, “‘this is my opinion,” and adding, not in 
modesty, or doubt, but in meiotic irony, ‘‘and it seems to me 
that I have the Spirit of God.’ If this interpretation be 
correct, and with the “it seems to me”’ and the very em- 
phatic “‘I”’ staring us in the face, drawing the contrast 
so sharply between Paul and the impugners of his authority, 
it seems indubitably so; then it is clear that Paul claims here 


INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 403 


a direct divine inspiration in the expression of even his 
‘“opinion”’ in his letters. Again look for an instant at I Cor. 
ii. 13. ‘‘ Which things, also we utter not in words taught by 
human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit; joining 
spiritual things with spiritual things;’’ where modern science, 
more clearly even than ancient faith, sees it stated that both 
the matter and the manner of this teaching are from the Holy 
Ghost — both the thoughts and the words — yes, the words 
themselves. “It is not meet,” says the Apostle, ‘“‘that the 
things taught by the Holy Ghost should be expressed in 
merely human words; there must be Spirit-given words to 
clothe the Spirit-given doctrines. Therefore, I utter these 
things not in the words taught by human wisdom — not 
even in the most wisely-chosen human words — but in 
those taught by the Spirit, joining thus with Spirit-given 
things (as was fit) only Spirit-given words.” It is impossible 
to deny that here there is clearly taught a suggestio verborum. 
Nor will it do to say that this does not bear on the point at 
issue, seeing that \éyos and not pjua is the term used. Not 
only is even this subterfuge useless in the face of what we will 
have still to urge, but it is even meaningless here. No one 
supposes that the mere grammatical forms separately con- 
sidered are inspired: the claim concerns words in their ordered 
sequence — in their living flow in the sentences — and this is 
just what is expressed by A\dyou. This passage thus stands be- 
fore us distinctly claiming verbal inspiration. The two to- 
gether seem reconcilable with nothing less far reaching than 
the church doctrine. 

2. But we must turn to our second remark. It is this: The 
New Testament writers distinctly place each other’s writings un 
the same lofty category in which they place the writings of the 
Old Testament; and as they indubitably hold to the full — even 
verbal — inspiration of the Old Testament, wt follows that they 
claim the same verbal inspiration for the New. Is it doubted 
that the New Testament writers ascribe full inspiration to 
the Old Testament? Modern science does not doubt it; 
nor can anyone doubt it who will but listen to the words of 


404 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


the New Testament writers in the matter. The whole New 
Testament is based on the divinity of the Old, and its in- 
spiration is assumed on every page. The full strength of the 
case, then, cannot be exhibited. It may be called to our 
remembrance, however, that not only do the New Testa- 
ment writers deal with the Old as divine, but that they 
directly quote it as divine. Those very lofty titles, “‘Scrip- 
ture,”’ ‘‘The Scriptures,” ‘‘ The Oracles of God,” which they 
give it, and the common formula of quotation, “It is writ- 
ten,’ by which they cite its words, alone imply their full 
belief in its inspiration. And this is the more apparent that 
it is evident that for them to say, “‘Scripture says,” is 
equivalent to their saying, ‘‘God says,’ (Romans ix. 17; x. 
19; Galatians iii. 8.) Consequently, they distinctly declare 
that its writers wrote in the Spirit (Matthew xxu. 43; cf. 
Luke xx. 42; and Acts il. 24); the meaning of which is made 
clear by their further statement that God speaks their 
words (Matthew i. 22; 11. 15, etc.), even those not ascribed 
to God in the Old Testament itself (Acts xii. 35; Hebrews 
vill. 8; 1. 6, 7, 8; v. 5; Eph. iv. 8), thereby evincing the fact 
that what the human authors speak God speaks through 
their mouths (Acts iv. 25). Still more narrowly defining the 
doctrine, it is specifically stated that it is the Holy Ghost 
who speaks the written words of Scripture (Hebrews ili. 7) 
— yea, even in the narrative parts (Hebrews iv. 4). In direct 
accordance with these statements, the New Testament 
writers use the very words of the Old Testament as authori- 
tative and ‘‘not to be broken.’’ Christ, himself, so deals with 
a tense in Matthew xxii. 32, and twice elsewhere founds an 
argument on the words (John x. 34; Matthew xxii. 43); 
and it is in connection with one of these word arguments 
that his divine lips declare ‘‘the Scriptures cannot be 
broken.”’ His Apostles follow his example (Galatians iii: 16). 
Still, further, we have, at least, two didactic statements in 
the New Testament, directly affirming the inspiration of the 
Old (II Timothy iii. 16, and II Peter i. 21). In one of these it 
is declared that every Scripture is God-inspired; in the other, 


a ok ie 


5 a ee a a ge ee 





INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 405 


that no prophecy ever came by the will of man, but borne 
along by the Holy Ghost it was that holy men of God spoke. 
It is, following the best results of modern critical exegesis, 
therefore, quite certain that the New Testament writers 
held the full verbal inspiration of the Old Testament. Now, 
they plainly place the New Testament books in the same 
category. The same Paul, who wrote in II Timothy, ‘“‘ Every 
Scripture is God-inspired,’’ quotes in its twin letter, l 
Timothy, a passage from Luke’s Gospel calling it ‘‘Scrip- 
ture’? (I Timothy, v. 18), — nay, more, — parallelizing it 
as equally Scripture with a passage from the Old Testament. 
And the same Peter, who gave us our other didactic state- 
ments, and in the same letter, does the same for Paul 
that Paul did for Luke, and that even more broadly, de- 
-claring (II Peter iii. 16) that all Paul’s Epistles are to be 
considered as occupying the same level as the rest of the 
Scriptures. It is quite indisputable, then, that the New 
Testament writers claim full inspiration for the New Testa- 
ment books. 

Now none of these points are weakened in either mean- 
ing or reference by the application of the principles of critical 
exegesis. In every regard they are strengthened. We can be 
quite bold, therefore, in declaring that modern criticism 
does not set aside the fact that the New Testament writers 
claim the very fullest inspiration. 

II. We must ask, then, secondly, if modern critical in- 
vestigation has shown that this claim of inspiration was 
disallowed by the contemporaries of the New Testament 
writers. Here again our answer must be in the negative. 
The New Testament writings themselves bristle with the 
evidences that they expected and received a docile hearing; 
parties may have opposed them, but only parties. And 
again, all the evidence that exists coming down to us from 
the sub-apostolic church — be it more or less voluminous, 
yet such as it is admitted to be by the various schools of 
criticism — points to a very complete reception of the New 
Testament claims. No church writer of the time can be 


406 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


pointed out who made a distinction derogatory to the New 
Testament, between it and the Old Testament, the Divine 
authority of which latter, it is admitted, was fully recognized 
in the church. On the contrary, all of them treat the New 
Testament with the greatest respect, hold its teachings in 
the highest honor, and run the statement of their theology 
into its forms of words as if they held even the forms of its 
statements authoritative. They all know the difference be- 
tween the authority exercised by the New Testament writers 
and that which they can lawfully claim. They even call the 
New Testament books, and that, as is now pretty well 
admitted, with the fullest meaning, ‘“‘Scripture.’’ Take a few 
examples: No result of modern criticism is more sure than 
that Clement of Rome, himself a pupil of Apostles, wrote 
a letter to the Corinthians in the latter years of the first 
century; and that we now possess that letter, its text 
witnessed to by three independent authorities and therefore 
to be depended on. That epistle exhibits all the above- 
mentioned characteristics, except that it does not happen 
to quote any New Testament text specifically as Scripture. 
It treats the New Testament with the greatest respect, it 
teaches for doctrines only what it teaches, it runs its state- 
ments into New Testament forms, it imitates the New 
Testament style, it draws a broad distinction between the 
authority with which Paul wrote and that which it can claim, 
it declares distinctly that Paul wrote ‘‘most certainly in 
a spirit-led way’ (ém’ ddnetas mvevuatikds. c. 47.) Again, 
even the most sceptical of schools place the Epistle of Barna- 
bas in the first or at the very beginning of the second cen- 
tury, and it again exhibits these same phenomena, — more- 
over quoting Matthew definitely as Scripture. One of the 
latest triumphs of a most acute criticism has been the 
vindication of the genuineness of the seven short Greek 
letters of Ignatius, which are thus proved to belong to the 
very first years of the second century and to be the produc- 
tion again of one who knew Apostles. In them again we 
meet with the same phenomena. Ignatius even knows of a 


INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 407 


collected New Testament equal in authority to the Divinely 
inspired Old Testament. But we need not multiply detailed 
evidence; every piece of Christian writing which is even 
probably to be assigned to one who knew or might have 
known the Apostles, bears like testimony. This is absolutely 
without exception. They all treat the New Testament books 
as differentiated from all other writings, and no single voice 
can be adduced as raised against them. The very heretics 
bear witness to the same effect; anxious as they are to be rid 
of the teaching of these writings they yet hold them authori- 
tative and so endeavor to twist their words into conformity 
with their errors. And if we follow the stream further down 
its course, the evidence becomes more and more abundant 
in direct proportion to the increasing abundance of the 
literary remains and their change from purely practical 
epistles or addresses to Jews and heathen to controversial 
treatises between Christian parties. It is exceedingly clear, 
then, that modern criticism has not proved that the con- 
temporary church resisted the assumption of the New 
Testament writers or withstood their claim to inspiration: 
directly the contrary. Every particle of evidence in the 
case exhibits the apostolic church, not as disallowing, but 
as distinctly recognizing the absolute authority of the New 
Testament writings. In the brief compass of the extant 
fragments of the Christian literature of the first two decades 
of the second century we have Matthew and Ephesians 
distinctly quoted as Scripture, the Acts and Pauline Epistles 
specifically named as part of the Holy Bible, and the New 
Testament consisting of evangelic records and apostolic 
writings clearly made part of one sacred collection of books 
with the Old Testament.® Let us bear in mind that the belief 
of the early church in the inspiration of the Old Testa- 
ment is beyond dispute, and we will see that the meaning 
of all this is simply this: The apostolic church certainly 
accepted the New Testament books as inspired by God. 
Such are the results of critical enquiry into the opinions 
5 See Barn, 4, Poly. 12. Test. xii., Patt. Benj. 10. Ign. Phil. 5, 8, ete. 


408 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


on this subject of the church writers standing next to the 
Apostles. 

III. If then, the New Testament writers clearly claim 
verbal inspiration and the apostolic church plainly allowed 
that claim, any objection to this doctrine must proceed by 
attempting to undermine the claim itself. From a critical 
standpoint this can be done only in two ways: It may be 
shown that the books making it are not genuine and there- 
fore not authentic, in which case they are certainly not 
trustworthy and their lofty claims must be set aside as part 
of the impudence of forgery. Or it may be shown that the 
books, as a matter of fact, fall into the same errors and 
contain examples of the same mistakes which uninspired 
writings are guilty of, — exhibit the same phenomena of 
inaccuracy and contradiction as they, — and therefore, of 
course, as being palpably fallible by their very character 
disprove their claims to infallibility. It is in these two points 
that the main strength of the opposition to the doctrine of 
verbal inspiration lies, — the first being urged by unbe- 
lievers, who object to any doctrine of inspiration, the 
second by believers, who object to the doctrine of plenary 
and universal inspiration. The question is: Has either point 
been made good? 

1. In opposition to the first, then, we risk nothing in 
declaring that modern biblical criticism has not disproved the 
authenticity of a single book of our New Testament. It is a 
most assured result of biblical criticism that every one of 
the twenty-seven books which now constitute our New 
Testament is assuredly genuine and authentic. There is, 
indeed, much that arrogates to itself the name of criticism 
and has that honorable title carelessly accorded to it, which 
does claim to arrive at such results as set aside the authentic- 
ity of even the major part of the New Testament. One school 
would save five books only from the universal ruin. To this, 
however, true criticism opposes itself directly, and boldly 
proclaims every New Testament book authentic. But thus 
two claimants to the name of criticism appear, and the 


- a 





INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 409 


question arises, before what court can the rival claims be 
adjudicated? Before the court of simple common sense, it 
may be quickly answered. Nor is it impossible to settle once 
for all the whole dispute. By criticism is meant an investiga- 
tion with three essential characteristics: (1) a fearless, honest 
mental abandonment, apart from presuppositions, to the 
facts of the case, (2) a most careful, complete and unpreju- 
diced collection and examination of the facts, and (3) the 
most cautious care in founding inferences upon them. The 
absence of any one of these characteristics throws grave 
doubts on the results; while the acme of the uncritical is 
reached when in the place of these critical graces we find 
guiding the investigation that other trio, — bondage to pre- 
conceived opinion, — careless, incomplete or prejudiced col- 
lection and examination of the facts, — and rashness of 
inference. Now, it may well be asked, is that true criticism 
which starts with the presupposition that the supernatural 
is Impossible, proceeds by a sustained effort to do violence 
to the facts, and ends by erecting a gigantic historical 
chimera — overturning all established history —on the 
appropriate basis of airy nothing? And, is not this a fair 
picture of the negative criticism of the day? Look at its 
history, — see its series of wild dreams, — note how each 
new school has to begin by executing justice on its prede- 
cessor. So Patlus goes down before Strauss, Strauss falls 
before Baur, and Baur before the resistless logic of his own 
negative successors. Take the grandest of them all, — the 
acutest critic that ever turned his learning against the Chris- 
tian Scriptures, and it will require but little searching to dis- 
cover that Baur hasruthlessly violated every canon of genuine 
criticism. And if this is true of him, what is to be said of the 
school of Kuenen which now seems to be in the ascendant? 
We cannot now follow theories like this into details. But on 
a basis of a study of those details we can remark without fear 
of successful contradiction that the history of modern nega- 
tive criticism is blotted all over and every page stained black 
with the proofs of work undertaken with its conclusion al- 


410 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ready foregone and prosecuted in a spirit that was blind to 
all adverse evidence.*® Who does not know, for example, of the 
sustained attempts made to pack the witness box against the 
Christian Scriptures? — the wild denials of evidence the most 
undeniable, — the wilder dragging into court of evidence the 
most palpably manufactured? Who does not remember the 
remarkable attempt to set aside the evidence arising from 
Barnabas’ quotation of Matthew as Scripture, on the ground 
that the part of the epistle which contained it was extant only 
in an otherwise confessedly accurate Latin version; and when 
Tischendorf dragged an ancient Greek copy out of an Eastern 
monastery and vindicated the reading, who does not remem- 
ber the astounding efforts then made to deny that the quota- 
tion was from Matthew, or to throw doubt on the early date 
of the epistle itself? Who does not know the disgraceful at- 
tempt made to manufacture, — yes simply to manufacture, 
— evidence against John’s gospel, persevered in in the face 
of all manner of refutation until it seems at last to have re- 
ceived its death blow through one stroke of Dr. Lightfoot’s 
trenchant pen on ‘‘the silence of Eusebius?” 7In every way, 
then, this criticism evinces itself as false. 

But false as it is, its attacks must be tested and the op- 
position of true criticism to its results exhibited. The 
attack, then, proceeds on the double ground of internal and 
external evidence. It is claimed that the books exhibit such 
contradictions among themselves and errors in historical 
fact, as evince that they cannot be authentic. It is claimed, 


6 We hear much of ‘‘apologists” undertaking critical study with such pre- 
conceived theories as render the conclusion foregone. Perhaps this is sometimes 
true, but it is not so necessarily. A Theist, believing that there is a personal God, 
is open to the proof as to whether any particular message claiming to be a reve- 
lation is really from him or not, and according to the proof, he decides. A Pantheist 
or Materialist begins by denying the existente of a personal God, and hence the 
possibility of the supernatural. If he begins the study of an asserted revelation, 
his conclusion is necessarily foregone. An honest Theist, thus, is open to evidence 
either way; an honest Pantheist or Materialist is not open to any evidence for the 
supernatural. See some fine remarks on this subject by Dr. Westcott, Contemporary 
Review, xxx. p. 1070. 

7 Contemporary Review, xxv. p. 169. 


INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 411 


moreover, that external evidence such as would prove them 
to have existed in the Apostolic times is lacking. How does 
true criticism meet these attacks? 

Joining issue first with the latter statement, sober criti- 
cism meets it with a categorical denial. It exhibits the fact 
that every New Testament book, except only the mites 
Jude, II and III John, Philemon and possibly II Peter, are 
quoted by the generation of writers immediately succeeding 
the Apostles, and are thereby proved to have existed in the 
apostolic times; and that even these four brief books which 
are not quoted by those earliest authors in the few and brief 
writings which have come down from them to us, are so 
authenticated afterwards as to leave no rational ground of 
doubt as to their authenticity. 

It is admitted on all hands that there is less evidence for 
II Peter than for any other of our books. If the early date of 
II Peter then can be made good, the early date of all the rest 
follows a fortiorz; and there can be no doubt but that sober 
criticism fails to find adequate grounds for rejecting II Peter 
from the circle of apostolic writings. It is an outstanding 
fact that at the beginning of the third century this epistle 
was well known; it is during the early years of that century 
that we meet with the first explicit mention of it, and then 
it is quoted in such a way as to exhibit the facts that it was 
believed to be Peter’s and was at that time most certainly 
in the canon. What has to be accounted for, then, is how 
came it in the canon of the early third century? It was cer- 
tainly not put there by those third century writers; their 
notices utterly forbid this. Then, it must have been already 
in it in the second century. But when in that century did it 
acquire this position? Can we believe that critics like 
Irenaeus, or Melito, or Dionysius would have allowed it to 
be foisted before their eyes into a collection they held all- 
holy? It could not, then, have first attained that entrance 
during the latter years of the second century; and that it 
must have been already in the New Testament, received 
and used by the great writers of the fourth quarter of the 


412 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


second century, seems scarcely open to doubt. Apart from 
this reasoning, indeed, this seems established; Clement of 
Alexandria certainly had the book, Irenaeus also in all 
probability possessed it. If, now, the book formed a part of 
the canon current in the fourth quarter of the second cen- 
tury, there can be little doubt but that it came from the 
bosom of the Apostolic circle. One has but to catch from 
Irenaeus, for instance, the grounds on which he received 
any book as scripture, to be convinced of this. The one and 
all-important sine-qua-non was that it should have been 
handed down from the fathers, the pupils of the Apostles, 
as the work of the Apostolic circle. And Irenaeus was an 
adequate judge as to whether this was the case; his imme- 
diate predecessor in the Episcopal office at Lyons was 
Pothinus, whose long life spanned the whole intervening 
time from the Apostles, and his teacher was Polycarp, who 
was the pupil of John. That a book formed a part of the 
New Testament of this period, therefore authenticates it as 
coming down from those elders who could bear personal 
witness to its authorship. This is one of the facts of criticism 
apart from noting which it cannot proceed. The question, 
then, is not: do we possess independently of this, sufficient 
evidence of the Petrine authorship of the book to place it in 
the canon? but: do we possess sufficient evidence against its 
Petrine authorship, to reject it from the canon of the fourth 
quarter of the second century authenticated as that canon 
as a Whole is? The answer to the question cannot be doubtful 
when we remember that we have absolutely no evidence 
against the book; but, on the contrary, that all the evidence 
of whatever kind which is in existence goes to establish it. 
There is some slight reason to believe, for instance, that 
Clement of Rome had the letter, more that Hermas had it 
and much that Justin had it. There is also a good probability 
that the early author of the Testaments of the XII. Patri- 
archs had and used it. Any one of these references, independ- 
ently of all the rest, would, if made good, throw the writing 
of the book back into the first century. Each supports the 


me ty 


INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 413 


others, and the sum of the probabilities raised by all, is all 
in direct support of the inference drawn from the reception 
of the book by later generations, so that there seems to be 
really no room for reasonable doubt but that the book 
rightly retains its position in our New Testament. This 
conclusion gains greatly in strength when we compare the 
data on which it rests, with what is deemed sufficient to 
authenticate any other ancient writing. We find at least two 
most probable allusions to II Peter within a hundred years 
after its composition, and before the next century passes 
away we find it possessed by the whole church and that 
as a book with a secured position in a collection super- 
authenticated as a whole. Now, Herodotus, for instance, is 
but once quoted in the century which followed its composi- 
tion, but once in the next, not at all in the next, only twice 
in the next, and not until the fifth century after its com- 
position is it as fully quoted as II Peter during its second 
century. Yet who doubts the genuineness of the histories of 
Herodotus? Again the first distinct quotation from Thucyd- 
ides does not occur until quite two centuries after its com- 
position; while Tacitus is first cited nearly a century after 
his death, by Tertullian. Yet no one can reasonably doubt 
the genuineness of the histories of either Thucydides or Taci- 
tus.2 We hazard nothing then, in declaring that no one can 
reasonably doubt the authenticity of the better authen- 
ticated II Peter. 

If now such a conclusion is critically tenable in the case 
of II Peter, what is to be said of the rest of the canon? There 
are some six writings which have come down to us, which 
were written within twenty years after the death of John; 
these six brief pieces alone, as we have said, prove the prior 
existence of the whole New Testament, with the exception of 
Jude, II and III John, Philemon and (possibly) II Peter, and 
the writers of the succeeding years vouch for and multiply 
their evidence. In the face of such contemporary testimony 
as this, negative criticism cannot possibly deny the authen- 

8 See Rawlinson’s ‘Hist. Evid.,” p. 370 f. 


414 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


ticity of our books. A strenuous effort has consequently been 
made to break the force of this testimony. The genuineness 
of these witnessing documents themselves has been attacked 
or else an attempt has been made to deny that their quota- 
tions are from the New Testament books. Neither the one 
effort nor the other, however, has been or can be successful. 
And yet with what energy have they been prosecuted! We 
have already seen what wild strivings were wasted in an 
attempt to get rid of Barnabas’ quotation of Matthew. 
That whole question is now given up; it is admitted that the 
quotation is from Matthew; and it is admitted that Barna- 
bas was written in the immediately sub-apostolic times. 
But Barnabas quotes not only Matthew, but I Corinthians 
and Ephesians, and in Keim’s opinion witnesses also to the 
prior existence of John. This may be taken as a type of the 
whole controversy. The references to the New Testament 
books in the Apostolic fathers are too plain to be disputed 
and it is simply the despair of criticism that is exhibited by 
the invention of elaborate theories of accidental coincidences 
or of endless series of hypothetical books to which to assign 
them. The quotations are too numerous, too close, and glide 
too imperceptibly and regularly from mere adoption of 
phrases into accurate citations of authorities, to be ex- 
plained away. They therefore stand, and prove that the 
authors of these writings already knew the New Testament 
books and esteemed them authoritative. 

Nor has the attempt to deny the early date of these 
witnessing writers fared any better. The mere necessity of the 
attempt is indeed fatal to the theory it is meant to support; 
if to exhibit the unauthenticity of the New Testament books, 
we must hold all subsequent writings unauthentic too, it 
seems plain that we are on a false path. And what violence 
is done in the attempt! For instance, the Epistle of Polycarp 
witnesses to the prior existence of Matthew, Luke, Acts, 
eleven Epistles of Paul, I Peter and I John; and as Polycarp 
was a pupil of John, his testimony is very strong. It must 
then be got rid of at all hazards. But Irenaeus was Poly- 








INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 415 


carp’s pupil, and Irenaeus explicitly cites this letter and 
declares it to be Polycarp’s genuine production; and no one 
from his time to ours has found cause to dispute his statement 
until it has become necessary to be rid of the testimony of the 
letter to our canon. But if Polycarp’s letter be genuine, it sets 
its own date and witnesses in turn to the letters of Ignatius, 
which themselves bear internal testimony to their own early 
date; and these letters of Ignatius testify not only to the prior 
individual existence of Matthew, John, Romans, I Corinthi- 
ans, Ephesians, Philippians, I Thessalonians and I John; 
but also to the prior existence of an authoritative Divinely- 
inspired New Testament. This is but a specimen of the linked 
character of our testimony. Not only is it fairly abundant, 
but it is so connected by evidently undesigned, indeed, but 
yet indetachable articulations, that to set aside any one im- 
portant piece of it usually necessitates such a wholesale at- 
tack on the literature of the second century as to amount 
to a reductio ad absurdum. We may, then, boldly formulate as 
our conclusion that external evidence imperiously forbids the 
dethronement of any New Testament book from its place in 
our canon. 

What, then, are we to do with the internal evidence that 
is relied upon by the negative school? What, but set it 
summarily aside also? It amounts to a twofold claim: 
(1.) The sacred writers are hopelessly inconsistent with one 
another, and (2.) they are at variance with contemporary 
history. Of course, disharmony between the four gospels, 
and between Acts and the Epistles is what is mainly relied 
on under the first point, and it must be admitted that much 
learning and acuteness has been expended on the effort to 
make out this disharmony. But it is to be noted: (1.) That 
even were it admitted up to the full extent claimed, it would 
be no proof of unauthenticity; it would be no more than 
that found between secular historians admitted to be 
authentic, when narrating the same actions from different 
points of view. And (2.) in no case has it been shown that 
disharmony must be admitted. No case can be adduced 


416 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


where a natural mode of harmonizing cannot be supplied, 
and it is a reasonable principle, recognized among critics of 
secular historians, that two writers must not be held to be 
contradictory where any natural mode of harmonizing can 
be imagined. Otherwise it amounts to holding that we know 
fully and thoroughly all the facts of the case, — better even 
than eye-witnesses seem ever to know them. In order to gain 
any force at all, therefore, for this objection, both the extent 
and degree of the disharmony has been grossly exaggerated. 
Take an example: It is asserted that the two accounts (in 
Matthew and Luke) of the events accompanying our Lord’s 
birth are mutually exclusive. But even a cursory examina- 
tion will show that there is not a single contradiction be- 
tween them. How then is the charge of disharmony sup- 
ported? In two ways: First, by erecting silence into contra- 
diction. Since Matthew does not mention the visit of the 
shepherds, he is said to contradict Luke who does. Since 
Luke does not mention the flight into Egypt he is said to 
contradict Matthew who does. And secondly, by a still more 
astounding method which proceeds by first confounding two 
distinct transactions and then finding irreconcilable con- 
tradictions between them. Thus Strauss calmly enumerates 
no less than five discrepancies between Matthew’s account 
of the visit of the angel to Joseph and Luke’s account of the 
visit of the angel to Mary. On the same principle we might 
prove both Motley’s ‘‘Dutch Republic” and Kingslake’s 
‘Crimean War’ to be unbelievable histories by gravely 
setting ourselves to find ‘discrepancies’? between the ac- 
count in the one of the brilliant charges of Egmont at 
St. Quentin and the account in the other of the great charge 
of the six hundred at Balaclava. This is not an unfair ex- 
ample of the way in which the New Testament is dealt with 
in order to exhibit its internal disharmony. We are content, 
however, that it should pass for an extreme case. For it will 
suffice for our present purpose to be able to say that if the 
New Testament books are to be proved unauthentic by 
their internal contradictions, by parity of reasoning the 


a Se 


INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 417 


world has never yet seen an authentic writing. In fact so 
marvelously are our books at one that, leaving the defen- 
sive, the harmonist may take the offensive and claim this 
unwonted harmony as one of the chief evidences of Chris- 
tianity. Paley has done this for the Acts and Epistles; and it 
can be done also for the Gospels. 

Perhaps we ought to content ourselves with merely re- 
peating this same remark in reference to the charge that the 
New Testament writers are at variance with contemporary 
history. So far is this from being true that one of the strong- 
est evidences for Christianity is the utter accord with the 
minute details of contemporary history which is exhibited 
in its records. There has been no lack indeed of ‘‘instances’’ 
of disaccord confidently put forth; but in every case the 
charge has recoiled on the head of its maker. Thus, the 
mention of Lysanias in Luke ii. 1 was long held the test 
case of such inaccuracy and sceptics were never weary of 
dwelling upon it; until it was pointed out that the whole 
‘error’? was not Luke’s but — the sceptic’s. Josephus men- 
tions this Lysanias and in such a way that he should not 
have been confounded with his older namesake; and in- 
scriptions have been brought to light which explicitly assign 
him to just Luke’s date. And so this stock example vanishes 
into the air from which it was made. The others have met a 
like fate. The detailed accuracy of the New Testament 
writers in historical matters is indeed wonderful, and is more 
and more evinced by every fresh investigation. Every now 
and then a monument is dug up, touching on some point 
adverted to in the New Testament; and in every case only 
to corroborate the New Testament. Thus not only has Luke 
long ago been proved accurate in calling the ruler of Cyprus 
a ‘‘proconsul,’”’ but Mr. Cesnola has lately brought to light 
a Cyprian inscription which mentions that same Proconsul 
Paulus whom Luke represents Paul as finding on the island. 
— (“‘Cyprus,” p. 425.) Let us but consider the unspeakable 
complication of the political history of those times; — the 
frequent changes of provinces from senatorial to imperial 


418 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


and vice versa, — the many alterations of boundaries and 
vacillations of relation to the central power at Rome, — 
which made it the most complicated period the world has 
ever seen, and renders it the most dangerous ground possible 
for a forger to enter upon; — and how impossible is it to 
suppose that a book whose every most incidental notice of 
historical circumstances is found after most searching 
criticism to be minutely correct, — which has threaded all 
this labyrinth with firm and unfaltering step, — was the 
work of unlearned forgers, writing some hundred years after 
the facts they record. Confessedly accurate Roman his- 
torians have not escaped error here; even Tacitus himself 
has slipped.® To think that a second century forger could 
have walked scathless among all the pitfalls that gaped 
around him, is like believing a blind man could thread a row 
of a hundred cambric needles at a thrust. If we merely apply 
the doctrine of probabilities to the accuracy of these New 
Testament writers they are proved to be the work of eye- 
witnesses and wholly authentic.” 

We can, then, at the end, but repeat the statement with 
which we began: Modern negative criticism neither on in- 
ternal nor on external grounds has been able to throw any 
doubt on the authenticity of a single book of our New 
Testament. Their authenticity, accuracy and honesty are 
super-vindicated by every new investigation. They are thus 
proved to be the productions of sober, honest, accurate men; 
they claim verbal inspiration; their claim was allowed by 
the contemporary church. So far modern criticism has gone 
step by step with traditional faith. There remains but one 
critical ground on which the doctrine we are considering can 
be disputed. Do these books in their internal character nega- 
tive their claim? Are the phenomena of the writings in con- 
flict with the claim they put forth? We must, then, in 
conclusion consider this last refuge of objection. 

2. Much has been already said incidentally which bears 


® Cf. “ Annal,’’)xi. p. 23. 
10 See this slightly touched on by Dr. Peabody, Princeton Rev., March, 1880. 


ee. a ee 





INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 419 


on this point; but something more is needed. An amount of 
accuracy which will triumphantly prove a book to be genu- 
ine and surely authentic, careful and honest, may fall short 
of proving it to be the very word of God. The question now 
before us is: Granting the books to be in the main accurate, 
are they found on the application of a searching criticism to 
bear such a character as will throw destructive objection in 
the way of the dogma that they are verbally from God? 
This inquiry opens a broad — almost illimitable — field, 
utterly impossible to treat fully here. It may be narrowed 
somewhat, however, by a few natural observations. (1). It 
is to be remembered that we are not defending a mechanical 
theory of inspiration. Every word of the Bible is the word 
of God according to the doctrine we are discussing; but also 
and just as truly, every word is the word of a man. This at 
once sets aside as irrelevant a large number of the objections 
usually brought from the phenomena of the New Testament 
against its verbal inspiration. No finding of traces of human 
influence in the style, wording or forms of statement or 
argumentation touches the question. The book is through- 
out the work of human writers and is filled with the signs 
of their handiwork. This we admit on the threshold; we 
ask what is found inconsistent with its absolute accuracy 
and truth. (2). It is to be remembered, again, that no 
objection touches the question, that is obtained by pressing 
the primary sense of phrases or idioms. These are often false; 
but they are a necessary part of human speech. And the 
Holy Ghost in using human speech, used it as He found it. 
It cannot be argued then that the Holy Spirit could not 
speak of the sun setting, or call the Roman world ‘‘the whole 
world.” The current sense of a phrase is alone to be con- 
sidered; and if men so spoke and were understood correctly 
in so speaking, the Holy Ghost, speaking their speech would 
also so speak. No objection then is in point which turns on a 
pressure of language. Inspiration is a means to an end and 
not an end in itself; if the truth is conveyed accurately to 
the ear that listens to it, its full end is obtained. (3). And 


420 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


we must remember again that no objection is valid which is 
gained by overlooking the prime question of the intentions 
and professions of the writer. Inspiration, securing absolute 
truth, secures that the writer shall do what he professes to 
do; not what he does not profess. If the author does not 
profess to be quoting the Old Testament verbatzm, — unless 
it can be proved that he professes to give the 7psissima verba, 
—then no objection arises against his verbal inspiration 
from the fact that he does not give the exact words. If an 
author does not profess to report the exact words of a dis- 
course or a document —if he professes to give, or it is 
enough for his purposes to give, an abstract or general 
account of the sense or the wording, as the case may be, — 
then it is not opposed to his claim to inspiration that he 
does not give the exact words. This remark sets aside a vast 
number of objections brought against verbal inspiration by 
men who seem to fancy that the doctrine supposes men to 
be false instead of true to their professed or implied inten- 
tion. It sets aside, for instance, all objection against the 
verbal inspiration of the Gospels, drawn from the diversity 
of their accounts of words spoken by Christ or others, 
written over the cross, etc. It sets aside also all objection 
raised from the freedom with which the Old Testament is 
quoted, so long as it cannot be proved that the New Testa- 
ment writers quote the Old Testament in a different sense 
from that in which it was written, in cases where the use of 
the quotation turns on this change of sense. This cannot be 
proved in a single case. 

The great majority of the usual objections brought 
against the verbal inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures from 
their phenomena, being thus set aside, the way is open to 
remarking further, that no single argument can be brought 
from this source against the church doctrine which does not 
begin by proving an error in statement or contradiction in 
doctrine or fact to exist in these sacred pages. I say, that 
does not begin by proving this. For if the inaccuracies are 
apparent only, —if they are not indubitably inaccuracies, 








INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 421 


— they do not raise the slightest presumption against the 
full, verbal inspiration of the book. Have such errors been: 
pointed out? That seems the sole question before us now. 
And any sober criticism must answer categorically to it, 
No! It is not enough to point to passages difficult to harmon- 
ize; they cannot militate against verbal inspiration unless 
it is not only impossible for us to harmonize them, but also 
unless they are of such a character that they are clearly con- 
tradictory, so that if one be true the other cannot by any 
possibility be true. No such case has as yet been pointed out. 
Why should the New Testament harmonics be dealt with 
on other principles than those which govern men in dealing 
with like cases among profane writers? There, it is a first 
principle of historical science that any solution which affords 
a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is 
preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error — 
whether those statements are found in the same or different 
writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, 
is to assume, not prove, error. We ask only that this recog- 
nized principle be applied to the New Testament. Who 
believes that the historians who record the date of Alexan- 
der’s death — some giving the 28th, some the 30th of the 
month — are in contradiction? ' And if means can be found 
to harmonize them, why should not like cases in the New 
Testament be dealt with on like principles? If the New 
Testament writers are held to be independent and accurate 
writers, — as they are by both parties in this part of our 
argument, — this is the only rational rule to apply to their 
writings; and the application of it removes every argument 
against verbal inspiration drawn from assumed disharmony. 
Not a single case of disharmony can be proved. 

The same principle, and with the same results, may be 
applied to the cases wherein it is claimed that the New 
Testament is in disharmony with the profane writers of the 
times, or other contemporary historical sources. But it is 
hardly necessary to do so. At the most, only three cases of 


11 For methods by which these are harmonized, see Lee ‘‘Inspiration,”’ p. 350. 


422 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


even possible errors in this sphere can be now even plausibly 
claimed: the statements regarding the taxing under Quirin- 
ius, the revolt under Theudas, and the lordship of Aretas 
over Damascus. But Zumpt’s proof that Quirinius was 
twice governor of Syria, the first time just after our Lord’s 
birth, sets the first of these aside; whereas the other two, 
while not corroborated by distinct statements from other 
sources, yet are not excluded either. Room is found for the 
insignificant revolt of this Theudas — who is not to be 
confounded with his later and more important namesake — 
in Josephus’ statement that at this time there were ‘‘ten 
thousand” revolts not mentioned by him. And the lordship 
of Aretas over Damascus is rendered very probable by 
what we know from other sources of the posture of affairs in 
that region, as well as by the significant absence of Roman- 
Damascene coinage for just this period. Even were the New 
Testament writers in direct conflict in these or in other 
statements, with profane sources, it. would still not be proven 
that the New Testament was in error. There would still be an 
equal chance, to say the least (much too little as it is), that 
the other sources were in error. But it is never in such con- 
flict; and, therefore, cannot be charged with having fallen 
into historical error, unless we are prepared to hold that the 
New Testament writers are not to be believed in any state- 
ment which cannot be independently of it proved true; in 
other words, unless it be assumed beforehand to be un- 
trustworthy. This, again, is to assume, not prove error. Not 
a single case of error can be proved. 

We cannot stop to mention even the fact that no doc- 
trinal contradictions, or scientific errors can be proved. 
The case stands or falls confessedly on the one question: 
Are the New Testament writers contradictory to each other 
or to other sources of information in their record of historical 
or geographical facts? This settled, indubitably all is settled. 
We repeat, then, that all the fierce light of criticism which 
has so long been beating upon their open pages has not 
yet been able to settle one indubitable error on the New 


“2 ey i ee ee Oe SS S- 


| 


INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 423 


Testament writers. This being so, no argument against their 
claim to write under a verbal inspiration from God can be 
drawn from the phenomena of their writings. No phenomena 
can be pled against verbal inspiration except errors, — no 
error can be proved to exist within the sacred pages; that is 
the argument in a nut-shell. Such being the result of the 
strife which has raged all along the line for decades of years, 
it cannot be presumptuous to formulate our conclusion here 
as boldly as after the former heads of discourse: — Modern 
criticism has absolutely no valid argument to bring against 
the church doctrine of verbal inspiration, drawn from the 
phenomena of Scripture. This seems indubitably true. 

It is, indeed, well for Christianity that it is. For, if the 
phenomena of the writings were such as to negative their 
distinct claim to full inspiration, we cannot conceal from 
ourselves that much more than their verbal inspiration 
would have to be given up. If the sacred writers were not 
trustworthy in such a witness-bearing, where would they be 
trustworthy? If they, by their performance, disproved their 
own assertions, it is plain that not only would these asser- 
tions be thus proven false, but, also, by the same stroke the 
makers of the assertions convicted of either fanaticism or 
dishonesty. It seems very evident, then, that there is no 
standing ground between the two theories of full verbal in- 
spiration and no inspiration at all. Gaussen is consistent; 
Strauss is consistent: but those who try to stand between! It 
is by a divinely permitted inconsistency that they can stand 
at all. Let us know our position. If the New Testament, claim- 
ing full inspiration, did exhibit such internal characteristics 
as should set aside this claim, it would not be a trustworthy 
guide to salvation. But on the contrary, since all the efforts 
of the enemies of Christianity — eager to discover error by 
which they might convict the precious word of life of false- 
hood — have proved utterly vain, the Scriptures stand be- 
fore us authenticated as from God. They are, then, just what 
they profess to be; and criticism only secures to them the 
more firmly the position they claim. Claiming to be verbally 


424 REVELATION AND INSPIRATION 


inspired, that claim was allowed by the church which re- 
ceived them, — their writers approve themselves sober and 
honest men, and evince the truth of their claim, by the 
wonder of their performance. So, then, gathering all that we 
have attempted to say into one point, we may say that 
modern biblical criticism has nothing valid to urge against 
the church doctrine of verbal inspiration, but that on the 
contrary it puts that doctrine on a new and firmer basis and 
secures to the church Scriptures which are truly divine. 
Thus, although nothing has been urged formally as a proof 
of the doctrine, we have arrived at such results as amount 
to a proof of it. If the sacred writers clearly claim verbal 
inspiration and every phenomenon supports that claim, and 
all critical objections break down by their own weight, how 
can we escape admitting its truth? What further proof do 
we need? 

With this conclusion I may fitly close. But how can I 
close without expression of thanks to Him who has so loved 
us as to give us so pure a record of His will, — God-given in 
all its parts, even though cast in the forms of human speech, 
— infallible in all its statements, — divine even to its small- 
est particle! I am far from contending that without such an 
inspiration there could be no Christianity. Without any 
inspiration we could have had Christianity; yea, and men 
could still have heard the truth, and through it been awak- 
ened, and justified, and sanctified and glorified. The verities 
of our faith would remain historically proven true to us — 
so bountiful has God been in his fostering care — even had 
we no Bible; and through those verities, salvation. But to 
what uncertainties and doubts would we be the prey! — 
to what errors, constantly begetting worse errors, exposed! 
— to what refuges, all of them refuges of lies, driven! Look 
but at those who have lost the knowledge of this infallible 
guide: see them evincing man’s most pressing need by in- 
venting for themselves an infallible church, or even an 
‘infallible Pope. Revelation is but half revelation unless it be 
infallibly communicated; it is but half communicated unless 


a 


” Oc eas, “Se, 4 ee ee pe 


INSPIRATION AND CRITICISM 425 


it be infallibly recorded. The heathen in their blindness are 
our witnesses of what becomes of an unrecorded revelation. 
Let us bless God, then, for His inspired word! And may He 
grant that we may always cherish, love and venerate it, 
and conform all our life and thinking to it! So may we find 
safety for our feet, and peaceful security for our souls. 








APPENDIX I 





THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE 
THE GENERAL ARGUMENT 








THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE! 


WueEN the Christian asserts his faith in the divine origin of his 
Bible, he does not mean to deny that it was composed and written by 
men or that it was given by men to the world. He believes that the 
marks of its human origin are ineradicably stamped on every page of 
the whole volume. He means to state only that it is not merely human 
in its origin. If asked where and how the divine has entered this divine- 
human book, he must reply: ‘‘ Everywhere, and in almost every way 
conceivable.’’ Throughout the whole preparation of the material to be 
written and of the men to write it; throughout the whole process of the 
gathering and classification and use of the material by the writers; 
throughout the whole process of the actual writing, — he sees at work 
divine influences of the most varied kinds, extending all the way from 
simply providential superintendence and spiritual illumination to 
direct revelation and inspiration. 

It is of great importance to distinguish between these various ways 
in which the divine has been active in originating the Scriptures, but 
it is of vastly greater importance to fix the previous fact that it is in 
the Scriptures at all and has entered them in any way. The present 
essay aims, therefore, without raising any of the many questions 
which concern the distinguishing of the various activities of God in 
originating his Scriptures, to busy itself with the one previous ques- 
tion: Is there reason to believe that God has been concerned at all in the 
origin of the Bible? 

The question thus proposed is a very general one. And it is a very 
immense one — almost limitless. It is, of course, utterly impossible to 
do more than touch upon it in any reasonable space, and all that 
could be urged in a single paper or in any reasonably circumscribed 
series of papers would bear a very small proportion to all that might 
be urged — to the mighty case that could be made out. No attempt 
can be made, therefore, toward fullness of treatment. A series of prop- 
ositions most baldly stated will only be laid down one after the other, 
and it will be left to the reader to develop and illustrate them and 
bring out their combined force, which will, however, it is hoped, be 
immediately partly evident from their simple statement. An effort 
will also be made, in the choice of the propositions and their ordering, 

1 Pub. 1882, by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Philadelphia, Pa. 

429 


430 APPENDIX 


to frame an argument of a kind which will demand, as of right, en- 
trance into every mind; one, therefore, which will depend for its force 
on no original assumptions, but will begin rather with simple and 
patent facts — will simply put these facts together and then inquire 
what kind of facts they are and what they imply. Thus the reasoning 
will take the form of an inquiry rather than an argument — of an in- 
duction rather than a demonstration. The conclusions reached may 
not be so sharply and accurately defined as if reached by other meth- 
ods, but they have the advantage of being obtained by a process to 
every step of which every man’s mind ought to be open. 

Our purpose is to look upon the Bible simply as one of the facts of 
the universe, of which every theory of the universe must take account, 
and for which, just as surely as for gravitation, it must make account 
or itself die, and then ask (and press the question): What kind of a 
cause must be assumed to account for it just as it is and just as it 
arose in the world? Thus we may inductively come to an answer to 
the query: ‘‘Must we assume superhuman activities at work in the 
genesis of this book?”’ 

Without further introduction, we begin the inquiry at once. 


I. Tue History oF THE BIBLE 


1. The basal fact from which our inquiry takes its start is the very 
indisputable and patent one that in the world there is such a book as 
Tue Brisue. There is a definite volume, well known and always the 
same in contents, about which there need be no mistake, which goes 
under this name, and under this name is accessible to all. This very 
patent fact is the first that we need to notice. 

2. It is another fact, hardly less patent than the last, that this 
book occupies a unique position in the world of civilized man. No 
other book stands to-day among men for what the Bible stands for. 
We are not asserting here that it has a right to the position it occupies 
or the power it exerts: we simply assert that it is undeniable that it 
holds that position and exercises that power. 

The legislation of civilized nations is profoundly affected by its 
teaching; the social habits of cultured people are largely determined 
by its scheme of life; the governmental forms of powerful countries 
are built on its principles, and their functions are carried on under its 
sanctions. Rulers are entrusted with the exercise of their powers, wit- 
nesses are credited in the deposition of their testimony, only after 
oaths sworn upon or according to it. Everywhere it has percolated 
through the fabric of civilization, and modern society is built up upon 
the lines drawn by it. 

Still further, where it most dominates, there is most life. It is the 








APPENDIX 431 


great Protestant nations — those who most rest upon this book — 
which are the most prominent nations, the most full of abounding life 
and enterprising energy, the most impressive on the destinies of man. 
It is even the pioneer of civilization; instead of following, it breaks the 
way for material advancement. Go where you will, if you find life, 
you will find also the Bible; and you will find it in the very midst of 
the organism. You will find it in the hall of legislation, and in the laws 
that are there framed; in the courts of justice, and in the justice that 
is there administered; in the colleges of learning, and in the learning 
that is there imparted; at the home-firesides, and in the moral train- 
ing and homely virtues which are there inculcated. In a word, it is, 
as no other book has ever been to a single nation, bound up with all 
civilization and progress and culture. 

3. It is worth our notice, still further, that this position of power 
and influence has been attained and held by the Bible through a most 
remarkable history. Confined for ages to a rough, isolated corner of 
the globe, in the keeping of a small and peculiar tribe of men, it almost 
without a moment’s warning, like a great lake receiving a new acces- 
sion of waters, immediately on completion, burst all boundaries and 
deluged the world. It came commended by no external pomp of ap- 
pearance, attended with no force of arms. Alone and single-handed, 
in the face of stinging contempt and bloodthirsty cruelty, it opposed 
ancient prejudices, long-settled habits, customs and religions, every 
consideration of self-interest or indulgence or safety, and swept them 
away like so many straws. By its simple, despised presence among 
men it conquered. It mattered not where it went; human society in 
every stage of development, under every form of administration, and 
composed of every race of men, everywhere alike yielded itself to it. 

We cannot overstate the case; it is even impossible for us to men- 
tally realize the profundity of the change induced. Look only at the 
straws of external action which, veering suddenly around, advertise 
to us the change of wind beneath and behind. See the revolution in the 
sentiment which the sight of a cross kindled. 

Who can estimate, again, the profound revolution which was nec- 
essary in men’s very habits of thought, in their inmost consciousness, 
before sacrificial ordinances could fall into neglect. Just think of it. 
From the beginning of the world sacrifices had been universal. Men 
knew, and had from the beginning known, no other way to express 
the deepest facts of their consciences. The habit had been ground in 
upon the race not only for a lifetime, but for a worldtime. Everybody 
everywhere spontaneously fled to this rite as the fit expression of the 
sense of sin and the hope of deliverance. And yet, in little more than 
fifty years after the introduction of Christianity into his province, 
Pliny complains that it had almost put a stop to sacrifices there. A 


432 APPENDIX 


world-habit, dominant from the beginning, thus rolled back upon it- 
self in a single generation! We cannot possibly appreciate the great- 
ness of this conquest. Sacrifices had been almost the whole life of the 
people: from childhood sacrifices had met each man in every form, in 
every quarter, in every act, in every duty of every day’s business. 
Not only could he not engage in any of the graver duties of the citizen 
without being confronted with them everywhere; he could not rise 
from his bed in the morning, retire to it at night, partake of his nec- 
essary sustenance, without a recognition of a god or the performance 
of a rite at every step. And yet Christianity came, not undermining 
the principle which underlay sacrifices, but emphasizing it, and still 
they fled away from its presence. 

Beneath such external changes, conceive, if you can, the immense 
revolution that was wrought. Not only was the whole practice of 
religion altered, but also the whole theory of religion; not only the 
whole practice of morals, but the whole theory of morals. Vices in 
former repute were suddenly raised to the highest pinnacle of virtues; 
virtues in former repute were thrust down to the lowest hell of vices. 
Everything was overturned. 

Is it asked whether the human means employed in gaining this 
grand victory were not sufficient to account for it? Look at them. A 
dozen ignorant peasants proclaiming a crucified Jew as the founder of 
a new faith; bearing as the symbol of their worship an instrument 
which was the sign of ignominy, slavery and crime; preaching what 
must have seemed an absurd doctrine of humility, patient suffering 
and love to enemies — graces undreamed of before; demanding what 
must have seemed an absurd worship for one who had died like a 
malefactor and a slave, and making what must have seemed an ab- 
surd promise of everlasting life through one who had himself died, and 
that between two thieves. 

Did their voices fall on willing or docile ears? This was the age of 
those princes of scoffers, Celsus and Lucian. 

Did they prosecute their work in peace and quietude? They were 
thrown to the lions until the very beasts were satiated with their prey. 
Their blood seemed only to water the field of the Lord. 

Thus, in the face of all discouragement and cruel persecution, the 
Bible found itself established with incredible rapidity in the hearts of 
an immense Christendom. In less than seventy years it was known 
over all the then known world; within little more than a single cen- 
tury it had won to itself ‘‘almost the greater part of the whole state.” 

Do you say that this, despite all appearances, must have been an 
exceptional age and an exceptional experience? We reply that it is the 
experience of the ages. When corruption had brought back an age of 
darkness and the Bible was once more lost from real life, it required 





- 


a a i 


Saat 








APPENDIX 433 


but a Luther to tear off the veil for it to re-enact the same history and 
sow Europe with the blood of its votaries till a harvest could be reaped 
of equal victory. It cannot be necessary to repeat the story of the 
noble conflict. You know it well, and know that it was a Bible war 
and a Bible victory. The same history is even now working itself out 
about us. Madagascar, under our eyes, has repeated it. Every corner 
of the globe has felt the tingling of the mighty impulse. Even here, in 
America, we are living amid historical wonders, our eyes unopened to 
the sight. Rapidly as the population of the United States has grown 
since 1800, the proportionate increase of the votaries of the Bible has 
outstripped it. Yet so quietly has it all been done that we live utterly 
oblivious of it until, through painfully gathered statistics, the fact is 
made to look us squarely in the face. 

How certain a fact, then, it is that the Bible has reached its present 
wonderful position and influence through a most remarkable history, 
and a history which it is still continuing on exactly the same lines! 

4. It is important to note, next, that throughout all this history, 
and still to-day, this great influence which the Bible has exerted has 
been, and is still, purely and only beneficent. All its power has been 
exerted in the direction of the elevation of man and loving ministry 
to his needs. Of course we are in no danger of forgetting that the truth 
of this statement has been of late challenged in some quarters. But 
neither can we forget three other facts: 1. That it is not challenged 
by the well-informed and unprejudiced even among those who deny 
the divine origin of the Bible. 2. That the methods by which it is 
attempted to make the Bible appear in any other réle than that of a 
cornucopia of good for man will (as Dr. Fisher has lately very clearly 
shown) avail equally to prove that love is a curse and the household 
fireside, with all its blessings, a very nest of corruption. Of course, it 
is not denied, either of love or of the Bible, that it sometimes has been 
the cause of pain; each has often ennobled man through the pain and 
self-sacrifice called out by it. Nor is it denied of either that it has been 
made at times the excuse of crime, but both have cried out upon the 
wickedness which would hide behind their sacred skirts. 3. That those 
who put forth the challenge have been led to do it only because the 
teaching of the Bible has so leavened society and the usages of modern 
life that it is almost impossible for men to believe that the world could 
ever have existed without the restraining and ennobling influences 
which now seem naturally to dominate us, and yet which really have 
their root in the Bible. A true picture of the boon which this book has 
really been to the world can be obtained only by an examination of 
two classes of facts — those belonging to the condition of society be- 
fore it entered into its beneficent reign on the one hand, and on the 
other those belonging to the condition into which society lapses when- 


434 APPENDIX 


ever the Bible in any degree loses its hold upon men. The shameless- 
ness of Roman society under the early emperors will give us the norm 
of the one; the horrors of the Italian renascence and of the French 
Revolution will give us the norm of the other. It is not necessary to 
stop now to pollute these pages with the recital of the depths of deg- 
radation from which the Bible rescued man, and from which its potent 
influence (witness the Italian renascence and the Reign of Terror) 
alone keeps him rescued: they may be read in any accredited history 
of the times, and it is certainly justifiable to assume as fact what is 
recognized as fact by all competent historians. 

Thus, then, the Bible is seen to tread the ages like the fabled 
goddess under whose beneficent footfall sprang beautiful flowers wher- 
ever she went. Hospitals and asylums and refuges for the sick, the 
miserable and the afflicted grow like heaven-bedewed blossoms in its 
path. Woman, whose equality with man Plato considered a sure mark 
of social disorganization, has been elevated; slavery has been driven 
from civilized ground; letters have been given by Christian missiona- 
ries, under the influence of the Bible and in order to its publication, to 
whole peoples and races. Who can estimate that boon? Thus Cyril and 
Methodius gave alphabet and written language to the vast hordes of 
the Sclaves; thus Ulphilas, to the whole race of Teutons; thus even 
Egypt, mother of letters, first received a manageable alphabet. Thus 
still to-day tribes and peoples sunk in barbarism are being lifted by 
the Bible to the ranks of literary nations. So the work goes on, and 
still to-day, as ever before, the Bible stands in all the world exercising 
everywhere its immense power in the restraining of all evil passions, 
in the advancement of all that is good and tender and elevating, in 
pouring out benefits unspeakable to the individual and the state. 

5. All this immense influence for good which the Bible is exercis- 
ing over the minds and hearts of men is due to a most deep-seated 
and steadfast conviction in their minds that it is from God and con- 
stitutes a law given from heaven for amending the lives and amelio- 
rating the condition of men. 

If this be a fanaticism, it is a most beneficent and a most remark- 
able fanaticism, far from easy to account for on the hypothesis that 
it is a fanaticism. Did men rush to embrace a delusion which had 
nothing to commend it to them amid the scoffs of Celsus and the 
ridicule of Lucian, against their every interest and against their every 
inclination, and that when the majesty of Rome was unsheathed to 
ffight them back and the jaws of the lions yawned to engulf them? 
Men do not usually spring so to die for a delusion which offers so little 
and threatens so much. Then, too, how has the fanaticism so grown? 
How is it that it still holds captive so many millions of those whose 
intellect is of the clearest and whose culture is of the highest? How is 


Ce ee 





APPENDIX 435 


it that it still embraces the civilized world? But, however it be at- 
tempted to account for it, here is the fact. The great influence which 
the Bible has ever exercised has been always, and still is accounted 
for by those who yield to it on their sincere conviction that this book, 
which differs so in power from all other volumes, differs from them 
equally in origin, being alone of books God’s book, while all others are 
men’s. 

6. This conviction is traced by them not solely to the visible 
power and influence of the book, nor solely, conjoined with that, to 
the manifest grandeur and divinity of its contents and character, but 
also (continuing to dwell now on external particulars) to marvelous 
circumstances which attended the giving of this marvelous book to 
the world. Those who wrote its latter portion and sent the whole 
abroad asserted that they acted under commission from God and 
authenticated their mission by a series of astounding miracles. Thus 
the miracle of the book is appropriately believed to have sprung from 
the center of a God-endowed company. 

We cannot pause now to prove that these miracles really occurred. 
All that can be said is that the testimony they rest on is irrefragable, 
and that they must be admitted to have occurred or the foundations 
of all history are swept away at a stroke. It is enough here to note 
how appropriately the wonderful history which has been wrought out 
by the Bible is made to spring from open miracles. All is here con- 
sistent and appropriate; and if those miracles which are asserted to 
have happened really happened, all is explained and constitutes a 
harmonious whole. Otherwise, we are landed in great difficulties and 
inconsistencies. 

If we will ponder the facts which we have so baldly stated, it seems 
that we must conclude that the external history of this book is such 
as will so harmonize with a supernatural origin for it as to take away 
all strangeness from the assertion of such an origin. And what is that 
but saying that the history of the book suggests a supernatural origin 
for it — even raises a presumption in favor of such an origin for it? 
This book is certainly unique in the power it possesses: is 1t not unique 
in its source of power? It is certainly furnished with an influence 
possessed by no other book. Whence came it? 


Il. Tuer STRUCTURE OF THE BIBLE 


And now let us open the volume and see what kind of a book this 
is which has exerted such remarkable power through so long and so 
wonderful a history. We have all, doubtless, a notion of the kind of 
book a volume is likely to be which will exercise vast influence over 
men — a masterly argument, say, well ordered and set foursquare 


436 APPENDIX 


against all possible opposition, each part fitted with consummate skill 
to each other part, and the whole driven with relentless force and un- 
swerving purpose straight to the intended goal; or a fervid appeal, 
say, based on the primal emotions of the heart, with burning and well- 
chosen words touching each string of that mystic harp, beating out 
from them all one burst of answering music. A consummate master of 
thought and speech may be thus conceived of as so catching the 
human heart as to hold it almost permanently. Yet his influence would 
be limited — notably, by this: the radius of the circle of his sym- 
pathies. Certainly no man has yet arisen able to frame a writing of 
universal and age-long influence, simply because no one has arisen 
yet wholly above the environment of the social customs and age- 
influence in which he was bred. And certainly it is inconceivable that 
a book should exert great influence over a wide expanse of territory 
and through long stretches of time which was not consciously framed 
for influence by an intelligent and competent mind. All this being 
true, it is assuredly worth our most serious attention that the Bible 
is the only book in existence which has any pretensions to being uni- 
versal and lasting in its influence; and yet, if it be not of superhuman 
origin, it could not have been framed consciously for influence. Let us 
look into this fact somewhat more closely. 

7. On first throwing open this wonderful volume we are struck 
immediately with the fact that it is not a book, but rather a congeries 
of books. No less than sixty-six separate books, one of which consists 
itself of one hundred and fifty separate compositions, immediately 
stare us in the face. These treatises come from the hands of at least 
thirty distinct writers, scattered over a period of some fifteen hundred 
years, and embrace specimens of nearly every kind of writing known 
among men. Histories, codes of law, ethical maxims, philosophical 
treatises, discourses, dramas, songs, hymns, epics, biographies, letters 
both official and personal, vaticinations, — every kind of composition 
known beneath heaven seems gathered here in one volume. 

Their writers, too, were of like diverse kinds. The time of their 
labors stretches from the hoary past of Egypt to and beyond the 
bright splendor of Rome under Augustus. They appear to have been 
of every sort of temperament, of every degree of endowment, of every 
time of life, of every grade of attainment, of every condition in the 
social scale. Looked at from a purely external point of view, the 
volume is a rough bale of drift from the sea of Time, a conglomerate 
of débris brought down by the waters and cast in a heap together. 
Nay, not only are there heterogeneous, but seemingly positively con- 
flicting, elements in it. One half is a mass of Hebrew writings held 
sacred by a race which cannot look with patience on the other half, 
which is a mass of Greek writings claiming to set aside the legislation 





} 
} 
; 


APPENDIX 437 


of a large part of its fellow. Yet it is this congeries of volumes which 
has had, and still has, this immense influence. The Hebrew half never 
conquered the world until the Greek half was added to it; the Greek 
half did not conquer save by the aid of the Hebrew half. The whole 
mass, 1n all its divinity, has attained the kingship. 

The question which will not down is, Can the miraculous power of 
this book be explained by the measure of power to which other books 
are able to attain? Where does this book, seemingly thus cast together 
by some whirlpool of time, get its influence? If influence is not natural 
to such a volume, must it not point to something supernatural in it? 
Whence came it? 

8. We may look, however, on a still greater wonder. Let us once 
penetrate beneath all this primal diversity and observe the internal — 
character of the volume, and a most striking unity is found to pef- 
vade the whole; so that, in spite of having been thus made up of such 
diverse parts, it forms but one organic whole. The parts are so linked 
together that the absence of any one book would introduce confusion 
and disorder. The same doctrine is taught from beginning to end, 
running like a golden thread through the whole and stringing book 
after book upon itself like so many pearls. Each book, indeed, adds 
something in clearness, definition, or even increment, to what the 
others proclaim; but the development is orderly and constantly pro- 
gressive. One step leads naturally to the next; the pearls are certainly 
chosen in the order of stringing. 

An unbroken historical continuity pervades the whole book. It is 
even astonishing how accurately the parts historically dovetail to- 
gether, jag to jag, into one connected and consistent whole. Malachi 
ends with a finger-post pointing through the silent ages to a path 
clearly seen in the Gospels. The New Testament fits on to the Old 
silently and noiselessly, but exactly, just as one stone of the Jewish 
temple fitted its fellow prepared for it by exact measurement in the 
quarries; so that, on any careful consideration of the two coexisting 
phenomena — utter diversity in origin of these books, and yet utter 
nicety of combination of one with all — it is as impossible to doubt 
that they were meant each for the other, were consciously framed 
each for its place, as it is to doubt that the various parts of a compli- 
cated machine, when brought from the factory and set up in its place 
of future usefulness, were all carefully framed for one another. 

But just see where this lands us. Unless we are prepared to allow 
to a man some fifteen hundred years of conscious existence and in- 
tellectual supervision of the work, we are shut up here to the ad- 
mission of a superhuman origin for this book. It is difficult to see how 
this argument can be really escaped. It will be perceived that it is 
analogous to what is often urged from the phenomena of the natural 


438 APPENDIX 


universe to prove for it a divine origin. Indeed, all the arguments 
urged in the one sphere are also capable of being urged in the other. 
The gradual framing of the Bible through a period of fifteen hundred 
years excludes human supervision. Now, the Bible, as a whole, is a 
result or an effect in the universe, and it must have had, as such, an 
adequate cause, which, since the result is an intelligent one, must have 
been an intelligent cause: there is the ontological argument, and it 
proves a superhuman intelligent cause for the Bible. It consists of 
orderly arranged parts, of an orderly developed scheme: there is the 
cosmological argument, and again it proves the activity of an intelli- 
gent cause (and much else not now to be brought out) of at least 
fifteen hundred years’ duration. It is itself a cause of marvelous 
effects in the world for the production of which it is most admirably 
designed, and its whole inner harmony and all its inner relations are 
most deeply graven with the marks of a design kept constantly before 
some intelligent mind for at least fifteen hundred years: there is the 
argument from design, attaining equally far-reaching and cogent con- 
clusions as in the realm of nature. The analogy need not, however, be 
drawn out further. An atheist of the present day spoke only sober 
truth when he declared that the divine origin of the Bible and the 
divine origin of the world must stand or fall together. The arguments 
which will prove the one prove also the other. Butler proved .this 
proposition long ago. It stands indubitable; so that absolute atheism 
or Christianity must be our only choice. 

9. Another point in which the unity of the Bible is strikingly 
apparent needs our attention next: amid all the diversity of its sub- 
ject-matter, it may yet be said that almost the whole book is taken 
up with the portrazture of one person. On its first page he comes for a 
moment before our astonished eyes; on the last he lingers still before 
their adoring gaze. And from that first word in Genesis which de- 
scribes him as the “‘seed of the woman” and at the same time her 
deliverer — with occasional moments of absence, just as the principal 
character of a play is not always on the stage, and yet with constant 
development of character — to the end, where he 1s discovered sitting 
on the great white throne and judging the nations, the one consistent 
but gradually developed portraiture grows before our eyes. Not a 
false stroke is made. Every touch of the pencil is placed just where it 
ought to stand as part of the whole. There is nowhere the slightest 
trace of wavering or hesitancy of hand. The draughtsman is certainly 
a consummate artist. And, as the result of it all, the world is possessed 
of the strongest, most consistent, most noble literary portraiture to be 
found in all her literature. 

Yet we are asked to believe that this grand result has been at- 
tained, not by the skilled imning of a Michelangelo, but by the dis- 


APPENDIX 439 


connected dabblings of a score and a half of untrained forgers, who, 
moreover, were ever at cross-purposes with each other. Why, if the 
creation and successful dramatization, through a few short years, of 
such a character as Hamlet required the genius of a Shakespeare, 
what genius was required for this astoundingly successful creation 
and dramatization of such a character as that of the Gop-MAN through 
the ages of ages and exons of xons — from the time when at his 
Father’s side he sat, coequal with him, before all worlds, to the time 
when these same worlds shall be swallowed up in the final fire! One 
should certainly rather risk his sanity in the assertion that the play 
of “‘Hamlet” had formed itself by the fortuitous concourse of the 
alphabetical signs and made its own portraiture of the subtle Dane, 
than on the assertion that this portraiture of the Gop-MAN had been 
attained apart from the constant supervision and active labor of a 
consummate mind. If we should thus consider this portraiture only 
as a fiction, it would demand for its author something more than has 
yet been seen in man. As it is undeniable now that it occupies the 
chiefest portion of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and binds 
the portions it occupies together as a consistent dramatization of it- 
self, it is equally undeniable that these portions of the Bible, at any 
rate, owe their origin to a mind able to superintend their composition 
for at least fifteen hundred years with a genius hitherto unexampled 
among men. 

10. One other bond of connection between the parts of the 
volume must needs be adverted to briefly — that formed by numer- 
ous predictions of coming events given in the earlier portions and 
accounts of the fulfillment of them in later portions, by which these 
later portions are proved to be but the intended outgrowth and con- 
clusion of the former. These predictions run through an immense 
range both of time and of circumstance, and are made too precise and 
detailed in form, and too precise and detailed in the account of their 
fulfillment, for it to be possible to doubt, on the one hand, that they 
were real predictions, or, on the other, that they were really fulfilled. 
Thus the various books are drawn close together; and if the Bible, 
externally considered, may be likened to a bale of drift, these proph- 
ecies, given in one part and reaching their fulfillment in another, are 
the strong cords which bind the bale securely together and make it 
one whole. The unity induced by this means is, indeed, complete and 
most conclusive to its own divine origin. 

11. Thus we are led to appeal to prophecy, and that not only to 
prove the unity of the plan of Scripture, but, independent of and far 
above that — by its very nature as prediction of things yet hidden 
in the future — as an irrefragable proof of the divine origin of the 
whole of the closely-knit volume in which it finds place. It is not a 


440) APPENDIX 


function of human intellect to read the secrets of unborn ages; and 
the existence in this book of accurate, detailed predictions of even 
unimportant and certainly incalculable events of the far future demon- 
strates its divine origin. 

It is, of course, impossible in this brief essay to illustrate the char- 
acter and convincingness of Scripture prophecy, or even to indicate 
instances of its unquestionable fulfillment in detail. Were there space, 
we might point to the immense number of independent predictions, 
seemingly opposite, or even contradictory, to one another, before their 
fulfillment, found on the coming of Christ to be harmoniously gath- 
ered up and fulfilled in his unique personality and work — predictions 
covering not only the great outlines of his work and the marked traits 
of his person, but publishing ages beforehand the very village in which 
he should first see the light, the homage on the one hand, and the 
abuse on the other, which he should receive, the life he should live 
and the death he should die, even to the most minute description of 
the pains he should suffer and the scoffs he should endure as he hung 
upon the tree — yea, even the exact price of his blood and fate of his 
betrayer. Or, again, we might point to that ever-living witness to the 
truth of prophecy in the Jewish race upon whom everything that has 
been prophesied has been and is being duly fulfilled; or, again, to an 
infinite multitude of minute details of predictions touching many 
races and nations which have with infinite might fulfilled themselves 
everywhere. Space would fail, however, for such an enumeration. And 
it is the less necessary, now that the feverish efforts, on the part of 
those who wish to escape from the power of the Bible, to assign later 
dates to the prophetical books than most cogent proof from many 
quarters will allow, amount to an admission that the prophetical ele- 
ment in them cannot be denied. In prophecy, therefore, we have a 
continual miracle set in the midst of the Bible, to stand in all ages as 
a sure proof that it comes from God. As each prediction is in turn ful- 
filled before the eyes of each age which witnesses it, a miracle performs 
itself (and attests itself in the act) which is as cogent and sufficient 
evidence of the divine origin of the Bible as if all the miracles of the 
apostolical age were rewrought in our presence to reaffirm its teaching. 
Thus we see, in perhaps a new light, the meaning of our Lord’s preg- 
nant saying: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will 
they be persuaded, though one rise from the dead.” 

As, then, when we considered the external history of the Bible, we 
were driven back, step by step, through marvelous circumstances to 
open miracles of power proclaiming and demonstrating the divine 
origin of the book, so here, as soon as we look within it in even the 
most cursory way, we repeat the same process and move back from 
marvel to marvel, until we reach the open miracle of prophecy, again 





APPENDIX 44] 


independently proving the divine origin of the book after a fashion 
which cannot be escaped or legitimately questioned. 


Ill. Tur Tracuine or THe BIBLE 


The same process is only again repeated, and cumulative evidence 
for the divine origin of the Bible obtained, when we look somewhat 
deeper into its contents and ask after the character and witness of its 
teaching — a subject broad as the earth itself and full of self-evidence, 
but upon which we have as yet not even cast a glance. The character 
and the nature of the contents of the Bible alone are enough to prove 
its divine origin. If men cannot have made the miracles of power by 
which its publication to the world was accompanied, nor the miracles 
of prophecy by which its progress through the world has been accom- 
panied, no more can they have manufactured the miracles of teaching 
of which its contents consist. Independently of all other evidence, the 
maracle of the contents demands a divine origin. This, again, may be 
made plainer by some specifications, which again, however, must be 
presented in a very naked and fragmentary way. 

12. Let us note, then, first of all, the unspeakable elevation and 
grandeur both of the teaching itself which this book presents and of 
the assumptions on which it bases that teaching. 

The conception of God which is here presented — how unutter- 
ably divine is it! Apart from the Bible, man has never reached to such 
a conception. This element of it, and that element of it, has, indeed, 
through the voice of nature, separately dawned upon his soul; but the 
complete ideal is conveyed to him only by this book. Infinite and 
eternal spirit — pure and ineffable — unlimited by matter, or space 
or time, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in essence and attributes! 
And what a circle of attributes! Infinite power, infinite wisdom, infin- 
ite justice, infinite holiness, infinite goodness, infinite mercy, infinite 
pity, infinite love! Verily, if this conception be not a true image of a 
really existent God, the human heart must say it ought to be. And this 
is the conception of God which the Bible holds up before us — more 
than that, which it dramatizes through an infinite series of infinitely 
varied actions through a period of millenniums of years in perfect 
consistency of character. Everywhere in its pages God appears as the 
all-powerful, all-wise, necessarily just and holy One; everywhere as 
the all-good, all-merciful, necessarily pitiful and loving One. Never is 
a single one of these ineffable perfections lost or hidden or veiled. 

The Bible’s conception of the nature of man is of like nobility. 
Framed in the image of God, he was made like him not only in the 
passive qualities, but also in his endowment of active capacities. Even 
freedom of action — unbound ability to choose his own future — were 


442 APPENDIX 


placed in his grasp. So, also, the Bible’s teaching as to the duties that 
man, even after he has made his fatal choice, owes to God and his 
neighbor, all founded on the principle of love; its teaching as to the 
possibilities before man and the destiny in store for him, culminating 
in the possibility of his enthronement as co-ruler of the universe with 
his divine Redeemer; its teaching as to the relation of man to the 
physical and irrational universe as responsible head over it; its teach- 
ing as to the origin of this universe itself and its purpose and destiny, 
— all reach the acme of grandeur. These instances must serve us as 
specimens of the grandeur of its teaching. 

13. We must note, still further, that both the general tenor of the 
Bible and its special assertions are all in precise accord ‘‘ with what 
the profoundest learning shows to be the actual state of the universe, 
as well as what the deepest and largest experience establishes as the 
actual course of nature.”’ And it is a very pertinent question how it 
happens that the Bible was able, alone of ancient books, to forestall 
the conclusions of the latest science of the nineteenth century. It has 
taken scientific thought up to to-day to bring its conceptions of the 
origin of the world to the point at which Moses stood some three 
millenniums ago. This, again, must serve us now as a specimen fact 
(among a multitude) proving that ‘‘whoever wrote this book knew 
more than we know, and knew it distinctly when we knew nothing.”’ 

Yet, although possessed of a knowledge thus unspeakably ad- 
vanced beyond all of their time, the writers of this book do not seem 
to have been proud of their possession or anxious to display it; they 
do not even formally transmit their knowledge, but simply act and 
speak on its presupposition; so that when we reach an equal stage of 
advancement to theirs, without having been hitherto conscious of its 
presence, we suddenly find it there continually implied and constantly 
underlying every part. It is thus always most deeply felt by those 
most conversant with the progress of knowledge, and yet does not in 
any degree clog the understanding of the book for the purpose for 
which it was given by those who are as yet ignorant of the basis of 
physical or philosophical fact assumed. 

14. Thus we are led to take note of another general characteristic 
of biblical teaching — the fact that all its great truths are universal 
truths; i.e., truths capable of reaching and making entrance into and 
taking a strong hold upon the heart of man as man, and of all men 
equally, independently of their race-affinities, intellectual advance- 
ment or social standing. That this should be so is undoubtedly a great 
wonder, and it is redoubled when we remember that it is correlated 
with great and remarkable knowledge. Usually, when the profound 
philosopher speaks, he needs philosophers for his audience; and yet 
here is a book which naturally and without effort betrays acquaint- 


— se iniaatiieadl ‘< 





APPENDIX 443 


ance with the deepest reaches of modern discovery, and yet in its 
every accent speaks home to the child as readily as to the sage. 

In still another respect this same fact — namely, that the truths 
of the Bible “find us” — has probative force, since, herefrom, it is 
equally evident that the Bible is suited to man and that its asserted 
truths are instinctively recognized by man as actual truths. The Bible’ 
thus certainly comes with a message to man — one that is recognized 
by each man who needs its words as specially for him, and that is 
witnessed to instinctively by each as true. How does it happen that 
this book, alone among books, reaches the heart alike of the Bushman 
and of a Newton? of a savage lost in the horrors of savagery and of a 
Faraday sitting aloft on the calm and clear if somewhat chill heights 
of science? This universality of effect seems to prove a corresponding 
universality of intention. But who of men has ever been able to hold 
before him as recipients of his book all men of all ages? Who has been 
able to calculate upon the hearts and characters of men removed from 
him by such stretches of both time and circumstance? Who could have 
been able to adapt a message penned in a corner, ages agone, to the 
mental position of the nineteenth century and the hearts of a Newton 
and a Faraday’? Yet we must assume for the Bible an author who was 
capable of this. Was Moses capable of it? Was an anonymous forger 
of his name? 

15. We must, however, turn to note another general characteristic 
of Scripture — the remarkable simplicity of its manner and the trans- 
parent honesty of its tone; so that its words, even when describing 
the most utter marvels, possess that calm, quiet ring which stamps 
them with indubitable truthfulness. If we are asked why we trust a 
friend in whom we have every confidence, and credit his every state- 
ment, we may be somewhat at a loss for a definite answer. “‘We know 
him,’’ we say. This same evidence is good also for a book. We may 
judge of the truthfulness of men’s writings by all those little intangible 
characteristics which when united go toward making a very strong 
impression of actual proof, but which one by one are almost too small 
to adduce or even notice, just as we may judge of the trustiness of 
men’s characters by all the innumerable looks, gestures, chance ex- 
pressions, little circumstances which make their due impression on 
us. Combined, they are convincing, though each by itself might seem 
ambiguous or valueless. The conclusion in each case 1s, however, valid 
and rational, and the evidence is unmistakably good evidence. Now, 
for the Bible, this evidence is unusually strong; and thus it happens 
that men who do not know how to reason, and who are incapable of 
following a closely-reasoned argument, are accepting the Bible on all 
sides of us on truly rational and valid evidence, and accepting it on 
like evidence as divine. They are continually reading accounts of 


444 APPENDIX 


miracles so numerous and so striking that the witnesses of them could 
not be mistaken; so embedded in a narrative of such artlessness, 
gravity, honesty, intelligence, straightforwardness as palpably to be 
neither fraud nor fancy that they form part and parcel of it and are 
absolutely inseparable from it; so embedded in a narrative which ap- 
proves itself by a thousand simple and inimitable hints and traits to be 
transparently truthful and trustworthy that they must stand or fall 
with it. Now, this is most rational evidence, and evidence sostrong that 
it is as difficult for the honest mind to resist it as it is for us to express it. 

16. It becomes surely, then, of sufficient importance to justify 
special notice that in the midst of this narrative, and scattered all 
through it, we find calm and simple, but frequent, constant, and 
steadfast, assertions of a divine origin for itself. So honest and trans- 
parently truthful a narrative, filled with marks everywhere of super- 
human knowledge, naturally enough does not, in the pride of human 
nature, claim all this superhuman knowledge for its human authors, 
but ascribes it all to God; naturally enough empties its human authors 
of any credit for knowledge before the time of knowledge and plans 
beyond the reach of man and ascribes it all to God. And its very 
honesty and simplicity of statement, the transparent honesty of this 
statement, proves the assertion truthful and trustworthy. Here, then, 
once more, we reach through orderly steps, exhibiting at each stage 
marks of God’s hand, the assertion of a divine origin; here, once more, 
after walking through the aisles and nave and choir of a grand cathe- 
dral filled all along with the marks of genius in its planning and exe- 
cution, we reach again the wall, and, lo! on it the marks of the chisel 
and the superscription of the Architect that prove it was made by a 
competent mind and did not grow. 

It is very difficult to see but that the argument, if fully drawn out 
and illustrated, is conclusive. 


IV. SPpEcIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE BIBLE 


Another, and an even more cogent, argument might be presented 
from a consideration of some special characteristics either of the whole 
Bible or of some of its parts — an argument hitherto untouched. This 
argument would soon, however, grow much too vast to be included 
in this essay. We must content ourselves with only pointing at a 
distance to only one particular which might, were there space, be 
urged most convincingly. 

17. We refer to the progressive character of the teaching included 
in this book, with the special cases which might be adduced under 
that head. It begins with first principles expressed in outward symbol, 
and advances gradually to the full system, working out its approaches 


SS RSNA Re i 





APPENDIX 445 


in history before delivering it in dogma. We do not urge simply that 
this progressive scheme is consistent with a divine origin for it; we 
urge that this supremely wise method of delivering truth and training 
a people, taken in connection with the unity of the system throughout 
the whole, is consistent with nothing else. No doctrinaire made this 
Bible — see what kind of work they do in the history of Middle-Age 
Florence and Revolutionary France — but a most consummate states- 
man who knew what was in man and how to mould him to his 
purposes. 

We would appeal, in this connection — progressiveness — spe- 
cially to the practical and practicable character of Old-Testament 
legislation. And thus we are led to assert that those very passages 
concerning polygamy and kindred themes (which have been made an 
occasion of gibe against the Scriptures) are themselves a most cogent 
argument for their divine origin. We Americans ought to know by 
this time that the best way to secure polygamy unharmed and en- 
shrine it unconquerably under the protection of a nation is to write 
on the statute-books inoperative laws against it. The Bible was framed 
by too wise a statesman to fall into that error, and we who enjoy 
Christian homes to-day have to thank God for it. The unspeakable 
wisdom of dealing at that age, and under those circumstances, with 
polygamy, divorce, slavery by regulative laws, which in regulating 
discouraged, and in discouraging destroyed them, makes strongly for 
a superhuman origin of the legislation. 

So, again, growing out of this same progressive system, we could 
appeal most strongly to the ritualistic system of symbolical worship 
given to the Jews and by law secured from failure, by which object 
lessons — all schoolmasters to lead to something better and higher — 
were ineffaceably taught to a whole nation, which was thus prepared 
to receive the spiritual lesson meant for it. 

Still again we should appeal to the wise method of New-Testament 
legislation through great principles rather than specific ordinances, 
thus securing absolute universality in connection with perfect definite- 
ness; or again to the remarkable tenderness and beauty of this legisla- 
tion, especially apparent in the cases of slaves, wives and children and 
temporal rulers — a phenomenon in the age when it was given enough 
of itself to suggest a divine origin for the one book which contains it; 
or still again to the wise silence of the same legislation on many sub- 
jects on which it must have been very tempting then to legislate, but 
legislation on which we can see now would have imperiled the success 
of the main purpose for which the book was given and obtained no 
corresponding gain. 

On all these and like points, however, it is not now possible to 
touch. We pass on, therefore, to our last remark. 


446 APPENDIX 


V. IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE BIBLE 


18. That the Bible, thus standing in the world, being of such sort, 
and having had such a history, has yet to be accounted for on the 
hypothesis that it had only a human origin. Here it stands, just such 
a fact in the universe, a substantive thing, tangible and that can be 
examined. The ingenuity of men has been feverishly busy with it these 
hundreds of years. Yet the world still awaits a theory which will render 
an adequate account of it on any other hypothesis than that it came 
from God. Theories have been attempted, but one after another they 
have broken down of their own weight or have had justice executed 
upon them by fellow-unbelieving hands amid the plaudits of all men 
of all parties. Thus it happens that up to to-day no hypothesis except 
that of superhuman interference has been able to stand a half cen- 
tury as an account of the origin of this book. What is this but the 
confession that without the assumption of superhuman interference 
this book cannot be accounted for? that these miraculous claims and 
these miraculous assertions cannot be rationally or satisfactorily ex- 
plained away? Look for one moment at the efforts made to account 
on natural grounds for the miraculous element in the New Testament. 
First, a school arose which tried to work on the assumption that when- 
ever a miracle is recorded the event described did really happen, in- 
deed, but that it has been exaggeratedly and mistakenly described as 
miraculous, and not merely natural, by the New-Testament writers. 
The sick were healed, but by medicinal means; the dead were raised, 
but only from seeming, not real, death. That attempt to explain away 
the miraculous failed, as requiring as great a series of miracles of 
wonderful coincidences as it explained away. Another then arose 
which wished to account for it all as a series of myths, holding that 
there was a kernel of truth in each event described, but that this 
kernel had gathered much falsehood around it as it rolled through 
time, from mouth to mouth, before it got recorded in our Bible, just 
as a snowball grows almost unrecognizably greater as it rolls down a 
long slope. But this attempt was wrecked hopelessly on the lack of a 
soil for the myths to grow in (that is, of snow to frame the balls of) 
and of time for them to increase in (that is, of any hill for them to 
roll down). Then another rose on its ruins — an elaborate theory of 
party strifes and forgeries and reforgeries of books in every conceiv- 
able interest; so that the same material was worked over and over 
again by false and designing men, to serve each new notion, until 
the final outcome was our New Testament. Again this theory was 
wrecked on the lack of time for all this elaborate process before 
the date at which adequate proof is in hand for the existence of 
the books. The whole elaborate scheme falls with the failure of the 








APPENDIX __ 447 


attempted rape of the second century. It cannot be true unless all 
history is false. 

Time is lacking for the New Testament to have grown in, if con- 
sidered a product of time; whence, then, came it? Soil is lacking for it 
to have developed in, if considered a human development; then, 
whence came it? All schemes which have hitherto been invented to 
account for its origin without God have pitiably failed, and there is 
no particular reason to look for anything more cogent to be advanced 
in the future. If, however, this book cannot be accounted for apart 
from God, we seem shut up to account for it as from him. Certainly, 
the only rational course is to accept it as from him until it is able to 
be rationally accounted for without his interference. 

With this we may fitly close our inquiry. The query with which 
we started seems abundantly answered. A supernatural origin for the 
Bible appears cumulatively proven. 

In closing, it would be well for us to take note of one or two facts 
in regard to the argument which has been offered. Let it be observed, 
then: 

1. That no attempt has been made to distinguish between a super- 
human and a divine origin for the Bible. This is not because the two 
are not separable, but only because they are, in our present argument, 
practically the same. 

2. That no attempt has been made to distinguish between the 
divine origin of the system and that of the books recording that 
system. This, again, is not because the two are not separable, but only 
because, so. far as the argument has been pressed — though not much 
farther — the two need not be practically separated. 

3. That no question has been raised as to the extent of the divine 
in the Bible. This is due to three facts: Because this question need not 
be raised primarily for the establishment of the faith, but is neces- 
sarily a consequent one to be raised after the general divine origin of 
the book is admitted; because, again, the humble Christian often looks 
upon and draws life from the Bible without raising this question, 
simply accepting what he reads as divinely given to strengthen his 
faith; and because, again, it was impossible in one essay to treat both 
questions. 

4. That, nevertheless, the facts and arguments which have been 
adduced in a general way to prove the general divine origin of the 
Bible not only prepare the way, but even, narrowly questioned, will 
raise a strong presumption, for the further conclusions that this book 
has been not only in a general way given by God, but also specifically 
inspired in the giving, that thus its every word is from him, and that 
it is worthy of our reverent and loving credence in its every particular. 





APPENDIX Il 


THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT: 
HOW AND WHEN FORMED 





hase >, 
pd ny tf 4 
(ve aan 











THE FORMATION OF THE CANON OF 
THE NEW TESTAMENT! 


In order to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the 
formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin 
by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough 
when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church 
did not require to form for itself the idea of a “‘canon,’’ — or, as we 
should more commonly call it, of a ‘‘Bible,’’ — that is, of a collection 
of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and prac- 
tice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the 
thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the ‘“‘Canon of the Old Testa- 
ment.’’ The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. 
And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His 
church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body 
of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they 
founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need 
proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that 
from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recog- 
nized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church 
thus was never without a ‘“‘Bible”’ or a ‘“‘canon.”’ 

But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the | 
apostles (by Christ’s own appointment the authoritative founders of 
the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative 
rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of 
the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been 
‘‘made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant’’; for (as one of them- 
selves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much 
more that which remaineth is in glory.’’ Accordingly not only was the 
gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine reve- 
lation, but it was also preached “‘in the Holy Ghost” (I Pet. 1. 12); 
not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed 
were ‘‘of the Holy Spirit’’ (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, 
therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were 
the depository of these commands (II Thess. i. 15). “Tf any man 
obeyeth not our word by this epistle,’’ says Paul to one church 
(II Thess. iii. 14), ‘note that man, that ye have no company with 


1 Pub. 1892, by the American Sunday School Union, Philadelphia, Pa. 
451 


A52 APPENDIX 


him.’’ To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recog- 
nize that what he was writing to them was “the commandments of 
the Lord” (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful 
a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as 
of a quality equal to that of the old ‘‘ Bible’’; placed alongside of its 
older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as 
such in their meetings for worship — a practice which moreover was 
required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 1. 3). In the 
apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the ‘“‘Scriptures”’ 
were not a closed but an increasing ‘‘canon.’’ Such they had been 
from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to 
Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should re- 
main among the churches ‘‘men of God who spake as they were 
moved by the Holy Ghost.” 

We say that this immediate placing of the new books — given the 
church under the seal of apostolic authority — among the Scriptures 
already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically 
evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in 
A.D. 68, speaks of Paul’s numerous letters not in contrast with the 
Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with ‘‘the 
other Scriptures”’ (II Pet. 11. 16) — that is, of course, those of the Old 
Testament. In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were 
the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and 
the Gospel of Luke under the common head of “Scripture” (I Tim. 
v. 18): ‘For the Scripture saith, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when 
he treadeth out the corn’ [| Deut. xxv. 4]; and, ‘The laborer is worthy 
of his hire’”’ (Luke x. 7). The line of such quotations is never broken 
in Christian literature. Polycarp (c. 12) in A.D. 115 unites the Psalms 
and Ephesians in exactly similar manner: ‘‘In the sacred books, ... 
as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’ and ‘ Let 
not the sun go down upon your wrath.’”’ So, a few years later, the 
so-called second letter of Clement, after quoting Isaiah, adds (11. 4): 
‘‘ And another Scripture, however, says, ‘I came not to call the right- 
eous, but sinners’’’ — quoting from Matthew, a book which Barnabas 
(cerca 97-106 A.D.) had already adduced as Scripture. After this such 
quotations are common. 

What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they 
obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the 
New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just 
beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive 
evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from 
the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture 
to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, 
then, first form a rival ‘“‘canon”’ of ‘‘new books” which came only 


o~ AE pare ber Cn oe eee” bcs 


APPENDIX 453 


gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the 
“old books”’; they received new book after new book from the apos- 
tolical circle, as equally “‘Scripture” with the old books, and added 
them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scrip- 
tures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough 
to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures. 

The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was 
framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the 
Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called ‘‘The Law and 
the Prophets and the Psalms” (or ‘‘the Hagiographa’’), or more 
briefly ‘‘The Law and the Prophets,” or even more briefly still ‘‘The 
Law’’; so the enlarged Bible was called ‘‘The Law and the Prophets, 
with the Gospels and the Apostles’? (so Clement of Alexandria, 
‘““Strom.”’ vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, ‘‘De Pres. Her.’’ 36), or most briefly 
“The Law and the Gospel”’ (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenzeus) ; while 
the new books apart were called ‘‘The Gospel and the Apostles,” or 
most briefly of all ‘‘The Gospel.’’ This earliest name for the new 
Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer 
Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use 
of it repeatedly (e. g., ‘“‘ad Philad.’’5; “‘ad Smyrn.” 7). In one passage 
he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the 
Christians aroused among the Judaizers (‘‘ad Philad.”’ 6). ‘‘When I 
heard some saying,”’ he writes, ‘‘‘ Unless I find it in the Old [Books | 
I will not believe the Gospel,’ on my saying, ‘It is written,’ they 
answered, ‘That is the question.’ To me, however, Jesus Christ 7s 
the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection, and the faith 
which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books ]— by which I wish, by 
your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the 
High Priest better,” etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the “Gospel” as 
Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer 
in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well-known 
saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old 
Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to ob- 
serve, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a 
different book from the Old Testament, but part of the one body of 
Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it. 

This is the testimony of all the early witnesses — even those 
which speak for the distinctively Jewish-Christian church. For ex- 
ample, that curious Jewish-Christian writing, ‘‘The Testaments of the 
XII. Patriarchs” (Benj. 11), tells us, under the cover of an ex post 
facto prophecy, that the “work and word”’ of Paul, 1.e., confessedly 
the book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles, ‘shall be written in the Holy 
Books,” i.e., as is understood by all, made a part of the existent Bible. 
So even in the Talmud, in a scene intended to ridicule a ‘“‘bishop”’ of 


454 APPENDIX 


the first century, he is represented as finding Galatians by ‘‘sinking 
himself deeper” into the same “‘ Book” which contained the Law of 
Moses (‘“‘Babl. Shabbath,’’ 116 a and b). The details cannot be 
entered into here. Let it suffice to say that, from the evidence of the 
fragments which alone have been preserved to us of the Christian 
writings of that very early time, it appears that from the beginning 
of the second century (and that is from the end of the apostolic age) 
a collection (Ignatius, II Clement) of ‘‘ New Books”’ (Ignatius), called 
the ‘‘Gospel and Apostles’? (Ignatius, Marcion), was already a part 
of the ‘‘Oracles”’ of God (Polycarp, Papias, II Clement), or ‘‘Scrip- 
tures’ (I Tim., II Pet., Barn., Polycarp, II Clement), or the ‘‘ Holy 
Books” or ‘‘Bible”’ (Testt. XII. Patt.). 

The number of books included in this added body of New Books, 
at the opening of the second century, cannot be satisfactorily deter- 
mined by the evidence of these fragments alone. The section of it 
called the ‘“‘Gospel”’ included Gospels written by ‘‘the apostles and 
their companions”’ (Justin), which beyond legitimate question were 
our four Gospels now received. The section called “the Apostles” 
contained the book of Acts (The Testt. XII. Patt.) and epistles of 
Paul, John, Peter and James. The evidence from various quarters 
is indeed enough to show that the collection in general use con- 
tained all the books which we at present receive, with the possible 
exceptions of Jude, II and III John and Philemon. And it is more 
natural to suppose that failure of very early evidence for these brief 
booklets is due to their insignificant size rather than to their non- 
acceptance. 

It is to be borne in mind, however, that the extent of the collec- 
tion may have — and indeed is historically shown actually to have — 
varied in different localities. The Bible was circulated only in hand- 
copies, slowly and painfully made; and an incomplete copy, obtained 
say at Ephesus in A.D. 68, would be likely to remain for many years 
the Bible of the church to which it was conveyed; and might indeed 
become the parent of other copies, incomplete like itself, and thus 
the means of providing a whole district with incomplete Bibles. Thus, 
when we inquire after the history of the New Testament Canon we 
need to distinguish such questions as these: (1) When was the New 
Testament Canon completed? (2) When did any one church acquire 
a completed canon? (3) When did the completed canon — the com- 
plete Bible — obtain universal circulation and acceptance? (4) On 
what ground and evidence did the churches with incomplete Bibles 
accept the remaining books when they were made known to them? 

The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last 
authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that 
was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the 








APPENDIX 455 


church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received 
the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any 
epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenti- 
cating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investi- 
gation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received 
by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second 
and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have 
lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from 
the time of Irenzeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon 
as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not 
yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of 
certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in 
sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (ase. g. 
of Revelation) : yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority 
of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward 
to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now con- 
stituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at 
large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, 
or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apos- 
tolicity. 

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly 
apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, 
constituted a book a portion of the ‘‘canon.’’ Apostolic authorship 
was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the 
apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, 
apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these 
books in the ‘“‘canon”’ of certain churches. But from the beginning it 
was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, 
but zmposition by the apostles as “law.’’ Hence Tertullian’s name for 
the “canon”? is ‘‘instrumentum”’; and he speaks of the Old and New 
Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the 
apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they 
founded — as their “Instrument,” or “‘ Law,” or ‘‘Canon”’ — can be 
denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, 
by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to 
books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, 
a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 
with Deuteronomy as equally ‘‘Scripture”’ with it, in the first extant 
quotation of a New Testament book as Scripture. The Gospels which 
constituted the first division of the New Books, — of ‘‘The Gospel 
and the Apostles,’’ — Justin tells us, were “written by the apostles 
and their companions.”’ The authority of the apostles, as by divine 
appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books 


456 APPENDIX 


they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they them- 
selves had written. 

The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into their 
New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as given 
by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must 
not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation and au- 
thentication of these books over the widely-extended church, for evi- 
dence of slowness of “‘canonization”’ of books by the authority or 
the taste of the church itself. 





7 : 
pe 
Wee 


Aree | Wl ide wile 
PER cy : 
rite a, ue iy) 
| ov af Al 
Mids Hier i a) hy, 
AAP Wed 1) 74 
ar Pep / 


ae 


POLY pas 
Pay Ai 
' a) Ay 
i PRN AL 


Paehin 


aa, 4 


f 


My ie on 
ane ay Lh 


7 
h 


y le Cae ‘9 ‘ 
; REN) LUE Be) 
a FT eA, tea bid 
Del rs ie Fa ‘ | 
‘ Md’ Wa Te 
ate 


LM + ‘i 
Ae vil MA) , § has 
had 





BS480 .W277 c.5 
he and inspiration, 


n Theological Seminar 


1 1012 Q0006 4008 









































DATE DUE 





DEMCO 38-297 


















weer 
EAN Paz Diy, 
Pn Evy, Pe kiwy 


3 
Nt by 
a 
ora oy 
Pepe eh 













afi 
* eheoey 
abt ae es 


wt: 
. 














Pa MH ys 
tere 


yy 
, 


ea 
> . 






yu 

i 
vies 
4A 


Oey, 

thst tae 

“ ite i 
’ 





pia) tae 
4; 
yah, 


